Learning together for better health using an evidence-based Learning Health System framework: a case study in stroke.

BACKGROUND: In the context of expanding digital health tools, the health system is ready for Learning Health System (LHS) models. These models, with proper governance and stakeholder engagement, enable the integration of digital infrastructure to provide feedback to all relevant parties including clinicians and consumers on performance against best practice standards, as well as fostering innovation and aligning healthcare with patient needs. The LHS literature primarily includes opinion or consensus-based frameworks and lacks validation or evidence of benefit. Our aim was to outline a rigorously codesigned, evidence-based LHS framework and present a national case study of an LHS-aligned national stroke program that has delivered clinical benefit. MAIN TEXT: Current core components of a LHS involve capturing evidence from communities and stakeholders (quadrant 1), integrating evidence from research findings (quadrant 2), leveraging evidence from data and practice (quadrant 3), and generating evidence from implementation (quadrant 4) for iterative system-level improvement. The Australian Stroke program was selected as the case study as it provides an exemplar of how an iterative LHS works in practice at a national level encompassing and integrating evidence from all four LHS quadrants. Using this case study, we demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare improvement. We emphasize the transition from research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler and a solution for impact in healthcare improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Stroke program has nationally improved stroke care since 2007, showcasing the value of integrated LHS-aligned approaches for tangible impact on outcomes. This LHS case study is a practical example for other health conditions and settings to follow suit.

How registry data are used to inform activities for stroke care quality improvement across 55 countries: A cross-sectional survey of Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q) hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q) is a worldwide quality improvement data platform that captures performance and quality measures, enabling standardized comparisons of hospital care. The aim of this study was to determine if, and how, RES-Q data are used to influence stroke quality improvement and identify the support and educational needs of clinicians using RES-Q data to improve stroke care. METHODS: A cross-sectional self-administered online survey was administered (October 2021-February 2022). Participants were RES-Q hospital local coordinators responsible for stroke data collection. Descriptive statistics are presented. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 1463 hospitals in 74 countries; responses were received from 358 hospitals in 55 countries (response rate 25%). RES-Q data were used "always" or "often" to: develop quality improvement initiatives (n = 213, 60%); track stroke care quality over time (n = 207, 58%); improve local practice (n = 191, 53%); and benchmark against evidence-based policies, procedures and/or guidelines to identify practice gaps (n = 179, 50%). Formal training in the use of RES-Q tools and data were the most frequent support needs identified by respondents (n = 165, 46%). Over half "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that to support clinical practice change, education is needed on: (i) using data to identify evidence-practice gaps (n = 259, 72%) and change clinical practice (n = 263, 74%), and (ii) quality improvement science and methods (n = 255, 71%). CONCLUSION: RES-Q data are used for monitoring stroke care performance. However, to facilitate their optimal use, effective quality improvement methods are needed. Educating staff in quality improvement science may develop competency and improve use of data in practice.

The Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) global scale-up using a cascading facilitation framework: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Variation in hospital stroke care is problematic. The Quality in Acute Stroke (QASC) Australia trial demonstrated reductions in death and disability through supported implementation of nurse-led, evidence-based protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia (sugar) and swallowing (FeSS Protocols) following stroke. Subsequently, a pre-test/post-test study was conducted in acute stroke wards in 64 hospitals in 17 European countries to evaluate upscale of the FeSS Protocols. Implementation across countries was underpinned by a cascading facilitation framework of multi-stakeholder support involving academic partners and a not-for-profit health organisation, the Angels Initiative (the industry partner), that operates to promote evidence-based treatments in stroke centres. .We report here an a priori qualitative process evaluation undertaken to identify factors that influenced international implementation of the FeSS Protocols using a cascading facilitation framework. METHODS: The sampling frame for interviews was: (1) Executives/Steering Committee members, consisting of academics, the Angels Initiative and senior project team, (2) Angel Team leaders (managers of Angel Consultants), (3) Angel Consultants (responsible for assisting facilitation of FeSS Protocols into multiple hospitals) and (4) Country Co-ordinators (senior stroke nurses with country and hospital-level responsibilities for facilitating the introduction of the FeSS Protocols). A semi-structured interview elicited participant views on the factorsthat influenced engagement of stakeholders with the project and preparation for and implementation of the FeSS Protocol upscale. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively within NVivo. RESULTS: Individual (n = 13) and three group interviews (3 participants in each group) were undertaken. Three main themes with sub-themes were identified that represented key factors influencing upscale: (1) readiness for change (sub-themes: negotiating expectations; intervention feasible and acceptable; shared goal of evidence-based stroke management); (2) roles and relationships (sub-themes: defining and establishing roles; harnessing nurse champions) and (3) managing multiple changes (sub-themes: accommodating and responding to variation; more than clinical change; multi-layered communication framework). CONCLUSION: A cascading facilitation model involving a partnership between evidence producers (academic partners), knowledge brokers (industry partner, Angels Initiative) and evidence adopters (stroke clinicians) overcame multiple challenges involved in international evidence translation. Capacity to manage, negotiate and adapt to multi-level changes and strategic engagement of different stakeholders supported adoption of nurse-initiated stroke protocols within Europe. This model has promise for other large-scale evidence translation programs.

Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage. RESULTS: Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.

Pre-implementation context and implementation approach for a nursing and midwifery clinician researcher career pathway: A qualitative study.

AIM: To describe the pre-implementation context and implementation approach, for a clinician researcher career pathway. BACKGROUND: Clinician researchers across all health disciplines are emerging to radically influence practice change and improve patient outcomes. Yet, to date, there are limited clinician researcher career pathways embedded in clinical practice for nurses and midwives. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected from four online focus groups and four interviews of health consumers, nursing and midwifery clinicians, and nursing unit managers (N = 20) between July 2022 and September 2023. RESULTS: Thematic and content analysis identified themes/categories relating to: Research in health professionals' roles and nursing and midwifery, and Research activity and culture (context); with implementation approaches within coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring (Normalization Process Theory). CONCLUSIONS: The Pathway was perceived to meet organizational objectives with the potential to create significant cultural change in nursing and midwifery. Backfilling of protected research time was essential. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The Pathway was seen as an instrument to empower staff, foster staff retention and extend research opportunities to every nurse and midwife, while improving patient experiences and outcomes. IMPACT: Clinicians, consumers and managers fully supported the implementation of clinician researchers with this Pathway. The Pathway could engage all clinicians in evidence-based practice with a clinician researcher leader, effect practice change with colleagues and enhance patient outcomes. REPORTING METHOD: This study adheres to relevant EQUATOR guidelines using the COREG checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Health consumers involved in this research as participants, did not contribute to the design or conduct of the study, analysis or interpretation of the data, or in the preparation of the manuscript.

Management of Poststroke Hyperglycemia: Results of the TEXAIS Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycemia in acute ischemic stroke reduces the efficacy of stroke thrombolysis and thrombectomy, with worse clinical outcomes. Insulin-based therapies are difficult to implement and may cause hypoglycemia. We investigated whether exenatide, a GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) receptor agonist, would improve stroke outcomes, and control poststroke hyperglycemia with minimal hypoglycemia. METHODS: The TEXAIS trial (Treatment With Exenatide in Acute Ischemic Stroke) was an international, multicenter, phase 2 prospective randomized clinical trial (PROBE [Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End-Point] design) enrolling adult patients with acute ischemic stroke ≤9 hours of stroke onset to receive exenatide (5 µg BID subcutaneous injection) or standard care for 5 days, or until hospital discharge (whichever sooner). The primary outcome (intention to treat) was the proportion of patients with ≥8-point improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (or National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores 0-1) at 7 days poststroke. Safety outcomes included death, episodes of hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and adverse event. RESULTS: From April 2016 to June 2021, 350 patients were randomized (exenatide, n=177, standard care, n=173). Median age, 71 years (interquartile range, 62-79), median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 4 (interquartile range, 2-8). Planned recruitment (n=528) was stopped early due to COVID-19 disruptions and funding constraints. The primary outcome was achieved in 97 of 171 (56.7%) in the standard care group versus 104 of 170 (61.2%) in the exenatide group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.79-1.88]; P=0.38). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. The per-patient mean daily frequency of hyperglycemia was significantly less in the exenatide group across all quartiles. No episodes of hypoglycemia were recorded over the treatment period. Adverse events of mild nausea and vomiting occurred in 6 (3.5%) exenatide patients versus 0 (0%) standard care with no withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with exenatide did not reduce neurological impairment at 7 days in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Exenatide did significantly reduce the frequency of hyperglycemic events, without hypoglycemia, and was safe to use. Larger acute stroke trials using GLP-1 agonists such as exenatide should be considered. REGISTRATION: URL: www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au; Unique identifier: ACTRN12617000409370. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03287076.

Interventions for the uptake of evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of research evidence to guide acute stroke care. Receiving care in a stroke unit improves access to recommended evidence-based therapies and patient outcomes. However, even in stroke units, evidence-based recommendations are inconsistently delivered by healthcare workers to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of implementation interventions (compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention) on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units. Secondary objectives were to assess factors that may modify the effect of these interventions, and to determine if single or multifaceted strategies are more effective in increasing adherence with evidence-based recommendations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute and ProQuest databases to 13 April 2022. We searched the grey literature and trial registries and reviewed reference lists of all included studies, relevant systematic reviews and primary studies; contacted corresponding authors of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searching of the included studies. There were no restrictions on language and publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Participants were health professionals providing care to patients in acute stroke units; implementation interventions (i.e. strategies to improve delivery of evidence-based care) were compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention. We included studies only if they reported on our primary outcome which was quality of care, as measured by adherence to evidence-based recommendations, in order to address the review aim. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We compared single implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to single implementation interventions and multifaceted implementation interventions to another multifaceted intervention. Our primary outcome was adherence to evidence-based recommendations. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven cluster-randomised trials with 42,489 patient participants from 129 hospitals, conducted in Australia, the UK, China, and the Netherlands. Health professional participants (numbers not specified) included nursing, medical and allied health professionals. Interventions in all studies included implementation strategies targeting healthcare workers; three studies included delivery arrangements, no studies used financial arrangements or governance arrangements. Five trials compared a multifaceted implementation intervention to no intervention, two trials compared one multifaceted implementation intervention to another multifaceted implementation intervention. No included studies compared a single implementation intervention to no intervention or to a multifaceted implementation intervention. Quality of care outcomes (proportions of patients receiving evidence-based care) were included in all included studies. All studies had low risks of selection bias and reporting bias, but high risk of performance bias. Three studies had high risks of bias from non-blinding of outcome assessors or due to analyses used. We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention leads to any change in adherence to evidence-based recommendations compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.61; 4 trials; 76 clusters; 2144 participants, I2 =92%, very low-certainty evidence). Looking at two specific processes of care, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably lead to little or no difference in the proportion of patients with ischaemic stroke who received thrombolysis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, 2 trials; 32 clusters; 1228 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), but probably do increase the proportion of patients who receive a swallow screen within 24 hours of admission (RR 6.76, 95% CI 4.44 to 10.76; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1,804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted implementation interventions probably make little or no difference in reducing the risk of death, disability or dependency compared to no intervention (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; 3 trials; 51 clusters ; 1228 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably make little or no difference to hospital length of stay compared with no intervention (difference in absolute change 1.5 days; 95% CI -0.5 to 3.5; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention result in changes to resource use or health professionals' knowledge because no included studies collected these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention improves adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings, because the certainty of evidence is very low.

Benefit of linking hospital resource information and patient-level stroke registry data.

Variation in the delivery of evidence-based care affects outcomes for patients with stroke. A range of hospital (organizational), patient, and clinical factors can affect care delivery. Clinical registries are widely used to monitor stroke care and guide quality improvement efforts within hospitals. However, hospital features are rarely collected. We aimed to explore the influence of hospital resources for stroke, in metropolitan and regional/rural hospitals, on the provision of evidence-based patient care and outcomes. The 2017 National Audit organizational survey (Australia) was linked to patient-level data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (2016-2017 admissions). Regression models were used to assess the associations between hospital resources (based on the 2015 Australian National Acute Stroke Services Framework) and patient care (reflective of national guideline recommendations), as well as 90-180-day readmissions and health-related quality of life. Models were adjusted for patient factors, including the severity of stroke. Fifty-two out of 127 hospitals with organizational survey data were merged with 22 832 Australian Stroke Clinical Registry patients with an admission for a first-ever stroke or transient ischaemic attack (median age 75 years, 55% male, and 66% ischaemic). In metropolitan hospitals (n = 42, 20 977 patients, 1701 thrombolyzed, and 2395 readmitted between 90 and 180 days post stroke), a faster median door-to-needle time for thrombolysis was associated with ≥500 annual stroke admissions [-15.9 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.2, -4.7], annual thrombolysis >20 patients (-20.2 minutes, 95% CI -32.0, -8.3), and having specialist stroke staff (dedicated medical lead and stroke coordinator; -12.7 minutes, 95% CI -25.0, -0.4). A reduced likelihood of all-cause readmissions between 90 and 180 days was evident in metropolitan hospitals using care pathways for stroke management (odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-0.99). In regional/rural hospitals (n = 10, 1855 patients), being discharged with a care plan was also associated with the use of stroke clinical pathways (odds ratio 3.58, 95% CI 1.45-8.82). No specific hospital resources influenced 90-180-day health-related quality of life. Relevant to all international registries, integrating information about hospital resources with clinical registry data provides greater insights into factors that influence evidence-based care.

Impact assessment of the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Research impact is an emerging measure of research achievement alongside traditional academic outputs such as publications. We present the results of applying the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the Centre for Research Excellence (CRE) in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke, 2014-2019) and report on the feasibility and lessons from the application of FAIT to a CRE rather than a discrete research project. METHODS: Data were gathered via online surveys, in-depth interviews, document analysis and review of relevant websites/databases to report on the three major FAIT methods: the modified Payback Framework, an assessment of costs against monetized consequences, and a narrative account of the impact generated from CRE-Stroke activities. FAIT was applied during the last 4 years of CRE-Stroke operation. RESULTS: With an economic investment of AU$ 3.9 million over 5 years, CRE-Stroke delivered a return on investment that included AU$ 18.8 million in leveraged grants, fellowships and consultancies. Collectively, CRE-Stroke members produced 354 publications that were accessed 470,000 times and cited over 7220 times. CRE-Stroke supported 26 PhDs, 39 postdocs and seven novice clinician researchers. There were 59 capacity-building events benefiting 744 individuals including policy-makers and consumers. CRE-Stroke created research infrastructure (including a research register of stroke survivors and a brain biobank), and its global leadership produced international consensus recommendations to influence the stroke research landscape worldwide. Members contributed to the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines: four researchers' outputs were directly referenced. Based only on the consequences that could be monetized, CRE-Stroke returned AU$ 4.82 for every dollar invested in the CRE. CONCLUSION: This case example in the developing field of impact assessment illustrates how researchers can use evidence to demonstrate and report the impact of and returns on research investment. The prospective application of FAIT by a dedicated research impact team demonstrated impact in broad categories of knowledge-gain, capacity-building, new infrastructure, input to policy and economic benefits. The methods can be used by other research teams to provide comprehensive evidence to governments and other research funders about what has been generated from their research investment but requires dedicated resources to complete.

A scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Nurses comprise the largest portion of the healthcare workforce worldwide. However, nurse representation in the leadership of clinical research and research funding is largely unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established to provide a coordinated network, focussed on building research capacity in nursing and midwifery. To support this work, this scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials was conducted to summarise research activity, as well as highlight future research directions, gaps and resources. Midwife-led trials will be reported elsewhere. AIM: To quantify number, type and quality of nurse-led randomised controlled trials registered between 2000-2021. DESIGN: A scoping review of RCTs. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Emcare and Scopus were searched from 2000 to August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021. REVIEW METHODS: This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework using the PRISMA-ScR. RESULTS: Our search yielded 188 nurse-led publications and 279 registered randomised controlled trials. Multiple trials had the same nurse leaders. There were more registrations than publications. Publications were predominantly of high methodological quality; however, there was a reliance on active controls and blinding was low. Trial registrations indicate that universities and hospital/healthcare organisations were the major sources of funding, while publications indicate that Governments and the National Health and Medical Research Council were the main funding bodies. CONCLUSION: A small number of high-quality, large-scale, nationally funded randomised controlled trials were identified, with a larger number of locally funded small trials. There was a disparity between the number of registered trials and those published. Additional infrastructure, funding and career frameworks are needed to enable nurses to design, conduct and publish clinical trials that inform the health system and improve health outcomes. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Research initiated and led by nurses has the potential to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities, and current nurse-led research is of high methodological quality; however, there were very few nurse-led RCTs, conducted by a small pool of nurse researchers. This gap highlights the need for support in the design, conduct and publishing of nurse-led RCTs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This is a scoping review; therefore, patient or public contribution is not applicable.

Hydration and nutrition care practices in stroke: findings from the UK and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Dehydration and malnutrition are common in hospitalised patients following stroke leading to poor outcomes including increased mortality. Little is known about hydration and nutrition care practices in hospital to avoid dehydration or malnutrition, and how these practices vary in different countries. This study sought to capture how the hydration and nutrition needs of patients' post-stroke are assessed and managed in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia (AUS). AIM: To examine and compare current in-hospital hydration and nutrition care practice for patients with stroke in the UK and Australia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between April and November 2019. Questionnaires were mailed to stroke specialist nurses in UK and Australian hospitals providing post-stroke inpatient acute care or rehabilitation. Non-respondents were contacted up to five times. RESULTS: We received 150/174 (86%) completed surveys from hospitals in the UK, and 120/162 (74%) in Australia. Of the 270 responding hospitals, 96% reported undertaking assessment of hydration status during an admission, with nurses most likely to complete assessments (85%). The most common methods of admission assessment were visual assessment of the patient (UK 62%; AUS 58%), weight (UK 52%; AUS 52%), and body mass index (UK 47%; AUS 42%). Almost all (99%) sites reported that nutrition status was assessed at some point during admission, and these were mainly completed by nurses (91%). Use of standardised nutrition screening tools were more common in the UK (91%) than Australia (60%). Similar proportions of hydration management decisions were made by physicians (UK 84%; AUS 83%), and nutrition management decisions by dietitians (UK 98%; AUS 97%). CONCLUSION: Despite broadly similar hydration and nutrition care practices after stroke in the UK and Australia, some variability was identified. Although nutrition assessment was more often informed by structured screening tools, the routine assessment of hydration was generally not. Nurses were responsible for assessment and monitoring, while dietitians and physicians undertook decision-making regarding management. Hydration care could be improved through the development of standardised assessment tools. This study highlights the need for increased implementation and use of evidence-based protocols in stroke hydration and nutrition care to improve patient outcomes.

The ACCELERATE Plus (assessment and communication excellence for safe patient outcomes) Trial Protocol: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, cost-benefit analysis, and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Nurses play an essential role in patient safety. Inadequate nursing physical assessment and communication in handover practices are associated with increased patient deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. Despite internationally implemented rapid response systems, falls and pressure injury reduction strategies, and recommendations to conduct clinical handovers at patients' bedside, adverse events persist. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and cost-benefit of an externally facilitated, nurse-led intervention delivered at the ward level for core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication. We hypothesise the trial will reduce medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, falls and pressure injuries. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted over 52 weeks. The intervention consists of a nursing core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication and will be implemented in 24 wards across eight hospitals. The intervention will use theoretically informed implementation strategies for changing clinician behaviour, consisting of: nursing executive site engagement; a train-the-trainer model for cascading facilitation; embedded site leads; nursing unit manager leadership training; nursing and medical ward-level clinical champions; ward nurses' education workshops; intervention tailoring; and reminders. The primary outcome will be a composite measure of medical emergency team calls (rapid response calls and 'Code Blue' calls), unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls and hospital-acquired pressure injuries; these measures individually will also form secondary outcomes. Other secondary outcomes are: i) patient-reported experience measures of receiving safe and patient-centred care, ii) nurses' perceptions of barriers to physical assessment, readiness to change, and staff engagement, and iii) nurses' and medical officers' perceptions of safety culture and interprofessional collaboration. Primary outcome data will be collected for the trial duration, and secondary outcome surveys will be collected prior to each step and at trial conclusion. A cost-benefit analysis and post-trial process evaluation will also be undertaken. DISCUSSION: If effective, this intervention has the potential to improve nursing care, reduce patient harm and improve patient outcomes. The evidence-based implementation strategy has been designed to be embedded within existing hospital workforces; if cost-effective, it will be readily translatable to other hospitals nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12622000155796. Date registered: 31/01/2022.

Sustainability of evidence-based practices in the management of infants with bronchiolitis in hospital settings - a PREDICT study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how and why de-implementation of low-value practices is sustained remains unclear. The Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International CollaboraTive (PREDICT) Bronchiolitis Knowledge Translation (KT) Study was a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in 26 Australian and New Zealand hospitals (May-November 2017). Results showed targeted, theory-informed interventions (clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, train-the-trainer workshop, targeted educational package, audit/feedback) were effective at reducing use of five low-value practices for bronchiolitis (salbutamol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, adrenaline and chest x-ray) by 14.1% in acute care settings. The primary aim of this study is to determine the sustainability (continued receipt of benefits) of these outcomes at intervention hospitals two-years after the removal of study supports. Secondary aims are to determine sustainability at one-year after removal of study support at intervention hospitals; improvements one-and-two years at control hospitals; and explore factors that influence sustainability at intervention hospitals and contribute to improvements at control hospitals. METHODS: A mixed-methods study design. The quantitative component is a retrospective medical record audit of bronchiolitis management within 24 hours of emergency department (ED) presentations at 26 Australian (n = 20) and New Zealand (n = 6) hospitals, which participated in the PREDICT Bronchiolitis KT Study. Data for a total of 1800 infants from intervention and control sites (up to 150 per site) will be collected to determine if improvements (i.e., no use of all five low-value practices) were sustained two- years (2019) post-trial (primary outcome; composite score); and a further 1800 infants from intervention and control sites will be collected to determine sustained improvements one- year (2018) post-trial (secondary outcome). An a priori definition of sustainability will be used. The qualitative component will consist of semi-structured interviews with three to five key emergency department and paediatric inpatient medical and nursing staff per site (total n = 78-130). Factors that may have contributed to sustaining outcomes and/or interventions will be explored and mapped to an established sustainability framework. DISCUSSION: This study will improve our understanding of the sustainability of evidence-based bronchiolitis management in infants. Results will also advance implementation science research by informing future de-implementation strategies to reduce low-value practices and sustain practice change in paediatric acute care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry No: ACTRN12621001287820.

Scoping review: Scope of practice of nurse-led services and access to care for people experiencing homelessness.

AIMS: To investigate the scope of practice of nurse-led services for people experiencing homelessness, and the influence on access to healthcare. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: On 20 November 2020, the following databases were searched: CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed and Scopus. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies focused on people experiencing homelessness aged 18 years and over, nurse-led services in any setting and described the nursing scope of practice. Studies were peer-reviewed primary research, published in English from the year 2000. Three authors performed quality appraisals using the mixed methods assessment tool. Results were synthesized and discussed narratively and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR 2020 Statement. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included from the United States (n = 9), Australia (n = 4), United Kingdom (n = 4) and Canada (n = 2). The total participant sample size was n = 6303. Studies focused on registered nurses (n = 10), nurse practitioners (n = 5) or both (n = 4), in outpatient or community settings. The nursing scope of practice was broad and covered a range of skills, knowledge and attributes. Key skills identified include assessment and procedural skills, client support and health education. Key attributes were a trauma-informed approach and building trust through communication. Important knowledge included understanding the impact of homelessness, knowledge of available services and the capacity to undertake holistic assessments. Findings suggest that nurse-led care facilitated access to healthcare through building trust and supporting clients to access services. CONCLUSION: Optimized nursing scope of practice can facilitate access to healthcare for people experiencing homelessness. Key factors in enabling this include autonomy in nursing practice, organizational support and education. IMPACT: The broad range of skills, knowledge and attributes reported provide a foundation from which to design an educational framework to optimize the nursing scope of practice, thereby increasing access to healthcare for people experiencing homelessness.

The role of stroke nurses in thrombolysis administration in Australia and the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional survey of current practice.

BACKGROUND: The role of stroke nurses in patient selection and administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) for acute ischaemic stroke is evolving. OBJECTIVES: To compare differences in stroke nurses' practices related to rt-PA administration in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) and to examine whether these differences influence rt-PA treatment rates. METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-administered questionnaire administered to a lead stroke clinician from hospitals known to provide rt-PA for acute ischaemic stroke. Chi-square tests were used to analyse between-country differences in ten pre-specified rt-PA practices. Non-parametric equality of medians test was used to assess within-country differences for likelihood of undertaking practices and association with rt-PA treatment rates. Reporting followed STROBE checklist. RESULTS: Response rate 68%; (Australia: 74% [n = 63/85]; UK: 65% [n = 93/144]). There were significant differences between countries for 7/10 practices. UK nurses were more likely to: request CT scan; screen patient for rt-PA suitability; gain informed consent; use telemedicine to assess, diagnose or treat; assist in the decision for rt-PA with Emergency Department physician or neurologist; and undergo training in rt-PA administration. Reported median hospital rt-PA treatment rates were 12% in the UK and 7.8% in Australia: (7.8%). In Australia, there was an association between higher treatment rates and nurses involvement in 5/10 practices; read and interpret CT scans; screen patient for rt-PA suitability; gain informed consent; assess suitability for rt-PA with neurologist/stroke physician; undergo training in rt-PA administration. There was no relationship between UK treatment rates and likelihood of a stroke nurse to undertake any of the ten rt-PA practices. CONCLUSION: Stroke nurses' active role in rt-PA administration can improve rt-PA treatment rates. Models of care that broaden stroke nurses' scope of practice to maximise rt-PA treatment rates for ischaemic stroke patients are needed. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study demonstrates that UK and Australian nurses play an important role in thrombolysis practices; however, they are underused. Formalising and extending the role of stroke nurses in rt-PA administration could potentially increase thrombolysis rates with clinical benefits for patients.

Organisational survey for acute stroke care in Vietnam: Regional Collaboration Programme.

OBJECTIVES: Low-middle income countries, such as Vietnam have a greater burden from stroke than high-income countries. Few health professionals have stroke specialist training, and the quality of care may vary between hospitals. To support improvements to stroke care, we aimed to gain a better understanding of the resources available in hospitals in Vietnam to manage acute stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey questions were adapted from the Australian Organisational Survey of Stroke Services (Stroke Foundation). The final 65 questions covered the topics: hospital size and admissions for stroke; use of clinical protocols and assessments conducted; team structure and coordination; communication and team roles. The survey was distributed electronically or via paper form in Vietnamese to clinical leaders of 91 eligible hospitals (November-December 2020). Data were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: Sixty-six (73%) hospitals responded, and doctors predominately completed the survey (98%). Approximately 70% of hospitals had a stroke unit; median 630 acute strokes/year (IQR: 250-1200) and >90% used stroke clinical protocols. The daytime nurse-patient ratio was 1:4. There was a perceived lack of access to allied health staff, including psychologists/neuropsychologists, occupational therapists, and speech pathologists. Only 50% reported having a standardised rehabilitation assessment process. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large-scale cross-sectional, national overview of stroke services in Vietnam. Future research should include a systematic clinical audit of stroke care to confirm aspects of the data from these hospitals. Repeating the survey in future years will enable the tracking of progress and may influence capacity building for stroke care in Vietnam.

Implementation of a hospital-wide multidisciplinary blunt chest injury care bundle (ChIP): Fidelity of delivery evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Ineffective intervention for patients with blunt chest wall injury results in high rates of morbidity and mortality. To address this, a blunt chest injury care bundle protocol (ChIP) was developed, and a multifaceted plan was implemented using the Behaviour Change Wheel. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reach, fidelity, and dose of the ChIP intervention to discern if it was activated and delivered to patients as intended at two regional Australian hospitals. METHODS: This is a pretest and post-test implementation evaluation study. The proportion of ChIP activations and adherence to ChIP components received by eligible patients were compared before and after intervention over a 4-year period. Sample medians were compared using the nonparametric median test, with 95% confidence intervals. Differences in proportions for categorical data were compared using the two-sample z-test. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Over the 19-month postimplementation period, 97.1% (n = 440) of eligible patients received ChIP (reach). The median activation time was 134 min; there was no difference in time to activation between business hours and after-hours; time to activation was not associated with comorbidities and injury severity score. Compared with the preimplementation group, the postimplementation group were more likely to receive evidence-based treatments (dose), including high-flow nasal cannula use (odds ratio [OR] = 6.8 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 4.8-9.6]), incentive spirometry in the emergency department (OR = 7.5, [95% CI = 3.2-17.6]), regular analgesia (OR = 2.4 [95% CI = 1.5-3.8]), regional analgesia (OR = 2.8 [95% CI = 1.5-5.3]), patient-controlled analgesia (OR = 1.8 [95% CI = 1.3-2.4]), and multiple specialist team reviews, e.g., surgical review (OR = 9.9 [95% CI = 6.1-16.1]). CONCLUSIONS: High fidelity of delivery was achieved and sustained over 19 months for implementation of a complex intervention in the acute context through a robust implementation plan based on theoretical frameworks. There were significant and sustained improvements in care practices known to result in better patient outcomes. Findings from this evaluation can inform future implementation programs such as ChIP and other multidisciplinary interventions in an emergency or acute care context.

Care of the Patient With Acute Ischemic Stroke (Posthyperacute and Prehospital Discharge): Update to 2009 Comprehensive Nursing Care Scientific Statement: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

In 2009, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association published a comprehensive scientific statement detailing the nursing care of the patient with an acute ischemic stroke through all phases of hospitalization. The purpose of this statement is to provide an update to the 2009 document by summarizing and incorporating current best practice evidence relevant to the provision of nursing and interprofessional care to patients with ischemic stroke and their families during the acute (posthyperacute phase) inpatient admission phase of recovery. Many of the nursing care elements are informed by nurse-led research to embed best practices in the provision and standard of care for patients with stroke. The writing group comprised members of the Stroke Nursing Committee of the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing and the Stroke Council. A literature review was undertaken to examine the best practices in the care of the patient with acute ischemic stroke. The drafts were circulated and reviewed by all committee members. This statement provides a summary of best practices based on available evidence to guide nurses caring for adult patients with acute ischemic stroke in the hospital posthyperacute/intensive care unit. In many instances, however, knowledge gaps exist, demonstrating the need for continued nurse-led research on care of the patient with acute ischemic stroke.

Influence of Including Patients with Premorbid Disability in Acute Stroke Trials: The HeadPoST Experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients with premorbid functional impairment are generally excluded from acute stroke trials. We aimed to determine the impact of including such patients in the Head Positioning in acute Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) and early additional impairment on outcomes. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of HeadPoST, an international, cluster-randomized crossover trial of lying-flat versus sitting-up head positioning in acute stroke. Associations of early additional impairment, defined as change in modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores from premorbid levels (estimated at baseline) to Day 7 ("early ΔmRS"), and poor outcome (mRS score 3-6) at Day 90 were determined with generalized linear mixed model. Heterogeneity of the trial treatment effect was tested according to premorbid mRS scores 0-1 versus 2-5. RESULTS: Of 8,285 patients (38.9% female, mean age 68 ± 13 years) with complete data, there were 1,984 (23.9%) with premorbid functional impairment (mRS 2-5). A significant linear association was evident for early ∆mRS and poor outcome (per 1-point increase in ΔmRS, adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.27; p < 0.0001). Patients with greater premorbid functional impairment were less likely to develop additional impairment, but their risk of poor 90-day outcome significantly increased with increasing (worse) premorbid mRS scores (linear trend p < 0.0001). There was no heterogeneity of the trial treatment effect by level of premorbid function. CONCLUSIONS: Early poststroke functional impairment that exceeded premorbid levels was associated with worse 90-day outcome, and this association increased with greater premorbid functional impairment. Yet, including premorbid impaired patients in the HeadPoST did not materially affect the subsequent treatment effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HeadPoST is registered at http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162017).

The prevalence and impact of unprofessional behaviour among hospital workers: a survey in seven Australian hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To identify individual and organisational factors associated with the prevalence, type and impact of unprofessional behaviours among hospital employees. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Staff in seven metropolitan tertiary hospitals operated by one health care provider in three states were surveyed (Dec 2017 - Nov 2018) about their experience of unprofessional behaviours - 21 classified as incivility or bullying and five as extreme unprofessional behaviour (eg, sexual or physical assault) - and their perceived impact on personal wellbeing, teamwork and care quality, as well as about their speaking-up skills. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of experiencing 26 unprofessional behaviours during the preceding 12 months; factors associated with experiencing unprofessional behaviour and its impact, including self-reported speaking-up skills. RESULTS: Valid surveys (more than 60% of questions answered) were submitted by 5178 of an estimated 15 213 staff members (response rate, 34.0%). 4846 respondents (93.6%; 95% CI, 92.9-94.2%) reported experiencing at least one unprofessional behaviour during the preceding year, including 2009 (38.8%; 95% CI, 37.5-40.1%) who reported weekly or more frequent incivility or bullying; 753 (14.5%; 95% CI, 13.6-15.5%) reported extreme unprofessional behaviour. Nurses and non-clinical staff members aged 25-34 years reported incivility/bullying and extreme behaviour more often than other staff and age groups respectively. Staff with self-reported speaking-up skills experienced less incivility/bullying (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.61) and extreme behaviour (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97), and also less frequently an impact on their personal wellbeing (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.38-0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Unprofessional behaviour is common among hospital workers. Tolerance for low level poor behaviour may be an enabler for more serious misbehaviour that endangers staff wellbeing and patient safety. Training staff about speaking up is required, together with organisational processes for effectively eliminating unprofessional behaviour.