Transdisciplinary allied health assessment for patients with stroke: a pre-/post- mixed methods study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Transdisciplinary approaches can streamline processes and build workforce capacity by blurring traditional responsibilities and integrating aspects of care. Emerging evidence shows transdisciplinary approaches can improve time-efficiency, quality of care and cost-effectiveness across various healthcare settings, however no empirical study is based on an acute stroke unit. METHODS: The SPIRIT checklist was used to guide the content of the research protocol. The study is a pragmatic pre-/post- mixed methods four-phase study with a 3-month follow up, based at the Mater Hospital Brisbane. Participants experiencing stroke symptoms will be recruited as they are admitted to the acute stroke unit. Patients presenting with mild stroke symptoms or Transient Ischaemic Attack will be allocated to Phase 1 (baseline) or Phase 2 (implementation), while patients presenting with moderate to severe stroke symptoms will be allocated to Phase 3 (baseline) or Phase 4 (implementation). Participants in baseline Phases 1 and 3 will receive standard allied health assessment, while participants in implementation Phases 2 and 4 will receive the novel transdisciplinary assessment. For the primary aim, allied health professionals will time their assessments to evaluate time taken to administer a novel transdisciplinary assessment, compared to usual discipline-specific assessments. Non-inferiority of the novel transdisciplinary assessment will also be explored in terms of patient safety, compliance to national standards, use of the assessment, and stakeholder perceptions. A retrospective medical record audit, staff focus group, patient/staff surveys, and patient phone interviews at 3-months will be completed. Quantitative results will be estimated using general linear and logistic regression models in Stata 15.1. Qualitative results will be analysed using frequency counts and NVivo software. An economic evaluation will be performed using three scopes including the allied health assessment, hospital admission, and patient outcomes at 3-months. DISCUSSION: When designing the study, pragmatic factors related to staff willingness to be involved, patient safety, and existing clinical pathways/processes were considered. To address those factors, a co-design approach was taken, resulting in staff buy-in, clinically relevant outcome measures, and the pre-/post- four-phase study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12621000380897. Registered 06 April 2021 - retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=381339&isReview=true.

Parallel-Forms Reliability and Clinical Utility of an Application Version of the Activity Card Sort Australia (18-64).

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the parallel-forms reliability of a web application (app) of the Activity Card Sort Australia for adults ages 18-64 and assessed its clinical utility. METHOD: Forty-eight participants completed the app and card versions of the tool within a 2- to 3-wk interval and provided feedback via a purpose-designed survey. Intraclass correlation analysis tested parallel-forms reliability. RESULTS: The app demonstrated acceptable parallel-forms reliability for overall retained activity level (r = .75, p < .001), the daily life domain (r = .77, p < .001), and the recreation and relaxation domain (r = .74, p < .001), but not for the physical activity domain (r = .59, p < .001). Clinical utility responses suggested good acceptance of both versions. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that further studies are required before the app version can be used for research or in clinical settings.

Does an allied health transdisciplinary stroke assessment save time, improve quality of care, and save costs? Results of a pre-/post- clinical study.

PURPOSE: Demand for stroke services is increasing. To save time and costs, stroke care could be reorganised using a transdisciplinary assessment model embracing overlapping allied health professional skills. The study compares transdisciplinary assessment to discipline-specific allied health assessment on an acute stroke unit, by evaluating assessment time, quality of care, and cost implications. METHOD: The pre-/post- clinical study used non-randomised groups and 3-month follow-up after hospital admission. Patients with confirmed/suspected stroke received usual discipline-specific allied health assessment (pre-implementation phase) or the novel transdisciplinary assessment (post-implementation phase). Staff/student assessment times (primary outcome) and medical record data (secondary outcomes) were collected. Time differences were estimated using multivariable linear regression controlling for confounding factors. Cost minimisation and sensitivity analyses estimated change in hospital resource use. FINDINGS: When the transdisciplinary assessment was used (N = 116), compared to usual assessment (N = 63), the average time saving was 37.6 min (95% CI -47.5, -27.7; p < 0.001) for staff and 62.2 min (95% CI -74.1, -50.3; p < 0.001) for students. The median number of allied health occasions of service reduced from 8 (interquartile range 4-23) to 5 (interquartile range 3-10; p = 0.011). There were no statistically significant or clinically important changes in patient safety, outcomes or stroke guideline adherence. Improved efficiency was associated with an estimated cost saving of $379.45 per patient (probabilistic 95% CI -487.15, -271.48). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Transdisciplinary stroke assessment has potential for reorganising allied health services to save assessment time and reduce healthcare costs. The transdisciplinary stroke assessment could be considered for implementation in other stroke services.

Co-production of a transdisciplinary assessment by researchers and healthcare professionals: a case study.

AIM: One definition of research co-production is a collaboration between researchers and healthcare professionals throughout a research process to facilitate knowledge translation and improve the clinical impact of research findings. In this paper, we present a case study of clinical research co-production and reflect on how the process was facilitated between researchers and healthcare professionals. Type of program or service: Development of a novel transdisciplinary assessment for implementation in an acute stroke unit (ASU). METHODS: Researchers and healthcare professionals integrated perspectives and co-produced a novel transdisciplinary assessment. Team-based activities were guided by a logic model, including task analysis and simulation testing. A logframe matrix was used to plan implementation strategies to mitigate potential risks. RESULTS: Research co-production was fundamental to integrating multiple perspectives to develop an effective, novel transdisciplinary assessment for patients with stroke. Preliminary data demonstrated that the transdisciplinary approach could save up to 103 minutes per patient in assessment time. LESSONS LEARNT: As the project evolved, the three most important factors for research co-production were 1) the right people to integrate critical disciplinary and pragmatic perspectives; 2) a project leader who was inclusive of perspectives held by researchers and healthcare professionals, and 3) structured and non-biased team discussions using a theoretical tool. We recommend these three factors be considered in future research co-production in healthcare settings.

Healthcare Teams: Terminology, Confusion, and Ramifications.

One strategy to meet increasing consumer demand for healthcare services in the pandemic era has been to reorganize the healthcare workforce. This can be achieved by reorganizing healthcare teams, which are associated with improved workforce productivity and better patient outcomes. However, healthcare teams are described using numerous terminologies and labels, which has led to conceptual confusion for researchers and research users. In this paper, we explore the disparate nature of healthcare team terminology, ramifications of conceptual confusion, and we propose standardized terminology with synthesized definitions focused on characteristics of clinically based healthcare teams including unidisciplinary, multidisciplinary, interprofessional, and transdisciplinary teams.