David J Clarke

Improving post-stroke recovery: the role of the multidisciplinary health care team

Stroke is a leading cause of serious, long-term disability, the effects of which may be prolonged with physical, emotional, social, and financial consequences not only for those affected but also for their family and friends. Evidence for the effectiveness of stroke unit care and the benefits of thrombolysis have transformed treatment for people after stroke. Previously viewed nihilistically, stroke is now seen as a medical emergency with clear evidence-based care pathways from hospital admission to discharge. However, stroke remains a complex clinical condition that requires health professionals to work together to bring to bear their collective knowledge and specialist skills for the benefit of stroke survivors. Multidisciplinary team working is regarded as fundamental to delivering effective care across the stroke pathway. This paper discusses the contribution of team working in improving recovery at key points in the post-stroke pathway.

Implementing a training intervention to support caregivers after stroke: a process evaluation examining the initiation and embedding of programme change

BackgroundMedical Research Council (MRC) guidance identifies implementation as a key element of the development and evaluation process for complex healthcare interventions. Implementation is itself a complex process involving the mobilization of human, material, and organizational resources to change practice within settings that have pre-existing structures, historical patterns of relationships, and routinized ways of working. Process evaluations enable researchers and clinicians to understand how implementation proceeds and what factors impact on intended program change. A qualitative process evaluation of the pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial; Training Caregivers after Stroke was conducted to examine how professionals were engaged in the work of delivering training; how they reached and involved caregivers for whom the intervention was most appropriate; how did those on whom training was targeted experience and respond to it. Normalization Process Theory, which focuses attention on implementing and embedding program change, was used as a sensitizing framework to examine selected findings.ResultsContextual factors including organizational history and team relationships, external policy, and service development initiatives, impinged on implementation of the caregiver training program in unintended ways that could not have been predicted through focus on mechanisms of individual and collective action at unit level. Factors that facilitated or impeded the effectiveness of the cascade training model used, whether and how stroke unit teams made sense of and engaged individually and collectively with a complex caregiver training intervention, and what impact these factors had on embedding the intervention in routine stroke unit practice were identified.ConclusionsWhere implementation of complex interventions depends on multiple providers, time needs to be invested in reaching agreement on who will take responsibility for delivery of specific components and in determining how implementation and its effectiveness will be monitored. This goes beyond concern with intervention fidelity; explicit consideration also needs to be given to the implementation process in terms of how program change can be effected at organizational, practice, and service delivery levels. Normalization Process Theory’s constructs help identify vulnerable features of implementation processes in respect of the work involved in embedding complex interventions.

Introducing structured caregiver training in stroke care: findings from the TRACS process evaluation study

Objective To evaluate the process of implementation of the modified London Stroke Carers Training Course (LSCTC) in the Training Caregivers After Stroke (TRACS) cluster randomised trial and contribute to the interpretation of the TRACS trial results. The LSCTC was a structured competency-based training programme designed to help develop the knowledge and skills (eg, patient handling or transfer skills) essential for the day-to-day management of disabled survivors of stroke. The LSCTC comprised 14 components, 6 were mandatory (and delivered to all) and 8 non-mandatory, to be delivered based on individual assessment of caregiver need. Design Process evaluation using non-participant observation, documentary analysis and semistructured interviews. Participants Patients with stroke (n=38), caregivers (n=38), stroke unit staff (n=53). Settings 10 of the 36 stroke units participating in the TRACS trial in four English regions (Yorkshire, North West, South East and South West, Peninsula). Results Preparatory cascade training on delivery of the LSCTC did not reach all staff and did not lead to multidisciplinary team (MDT) wide understanding of, engagement with or commitment to the LSCTC. Although senior therapists in most intervention units observed developed ownership of the LSCTC, MDT working led to separation rather than integration of delivery of LSCTC elements. Organisational features of stroke units and professionals’ patient-focused practices limited the involvement of caregivers. Caregivers were often invited to observe therapy or care being provided by professionals but had few opportunities to make sense of, or to develop knowledge and stroke-specific skills provided by the LSCTC. Where provided, caregiver training came very late in the inpatient stay. Assessment and development of caregiver competence was not commonly observed. Conclusions Contextual factors including service improvement pressures and staff perceptions of the necessity for and work required in caregiver training impacted negatively on implementation of the caregiver training intervention. Structured caregiver training programmes such as the LSCTC are unlikely to be practical in settings with short inpatient stays. Stroke units where early supported discharge is in place potentially offer a more effective vehicle for introducing competency based caregiver training. LINKED TRACS Cluster randomised controlled trial number ISRCTN49208824.

Understanding nursing practice in stroke units: a Q-methodological study

Abstract Purpose: Nurses represent the largest professional group working with stroke-survivors, but there is limited evidence regarding nurses’ involvement in post-stroke rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to identify and explore the perspectives of nurses and other multidisciplinary stroke team members on nurses’ practice in stroke rehabilitation. Method: Q-methodological study with 63 multidisciplinary stroke unit team members and semi-structured interviews with 27 stroke unit team members. Results: Irrespective of their professional backgrounds, participants shared the view that nurses can make an active contribution to stroke rehabilitation and integrate rehabilitation principles in routine practice. Training in stroke rehabilitation skills was viewed as fundamental to effective stroke care, but nurses do not routinely receive such training. The view that integrating rehabilitation techniques can only occur when nursing staffing levels were high was rejected. There was also little support for the view that nurses are uniquely placed to co-ordinate care, or that nurses have an independent rehabilitation role. Conclusions: The contribution that nurses with stroke rehabilitation skills can make to effective stroke care was understood. However, realising the potential of nurses as full partners in stroke rehabilitation is unlikely to occur without introduction of structured competency-based multidisciplinary training in rehabilitation skills. Implications for Rehabilitation Multidisciplinary rehabilitation in stroke units is a cornerstone of effective stroke care. Views of stroke unit team members on nurses’ involvement in rehabilitation have not been reported previously. Nurses can routinely incorporate rehabilitation principles in their care. Specialist competency-based stroke rehabilitation training needs to be provided for nurses as well as for allied health professionals.

Why do patients with stroke not receive the recommended amount of active therapy (ReAcT)? Study protocol for a multisite case study investigation

Introduction Increased frequency and intensity of inpatient therapy contributes to improved outcomes for stroke survivors. Differences exist in the amount of therapy provided internationally. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland it is recommended that a minimum of 45 min of each active therapy should be provided at least 5 days a week provided the therapy is appropriate and that the patient can tolerate this. Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (2014) data demonstrate this standard is not being achieved for most patients. No research been undertaken to explore how therapists in England manage their practice to meet time-specific therapy recommendations. The ReAcT study aims to develop an in-depth understanding of stroke therapy provision, including how the guideline of 45 min a day of each relevant therapy, is interpreted and implemented by therapists, and how it is experienced by stroke-survivors and their families. Methods and analysis A multisite ethnographic case study design in a minimum of six stroke units will include modified process mapping, observations of service organisation, therapy delivery and documentary analysis. Semistructured interviews with therapists and service managers (n=90), and with patients and informal carers (n=60 pairs) will be conducted. Data will be analysed using the Framework approach. Ethics and dissemination The study received a favourable ethical opinion via the National Research Ethics Service (reference number: 14/NW/0266). Participants will provide written informed consent or, where stroke-survivors lack capacity, a consultee declaration will be sought. ReAcT is designed to generate insights into the organisational, professional, social, practical and patient-related factors acting as facilitators or barriers to providing the recommended amount of therapy. Provisional recommendations will be debated in consensus meetings with stakeholders who have not participated in ReAcT case studies or interviews. Final recommendations will be disseminated to therapists, service managers, clinical guideline developers and policymakers and stroke-survivors and informal carers.

What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis

Background Co-production is defined as the voluntary or involuntary involvement of users in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of services. Interest in co-production as an intervention for improving healthcare quality is increasing. In the acute healthcare context, co-production is promoted as harnessing the knowledge of patients, carers and staff to make changes about which they care most. However, little is known regarding the impact of co-production on patient, staff or organisational outcomes in these settings. Aims To identify and appraise reported outcomes of co-production as an intervention to improve quality of services in acute healthcare settings. Design Rapid evidence synthesis. Data sources Medline, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, HMIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCIE, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, EThOS, OpenGrey; CoDesign; The Design Journal; Design Issues. Study selection Studies reporting patient, staff or organisational outcomes associated with using co-production in an acute healthcare setting. Findings 712 titles and abstracts were screened; 24 papers underwent full-text review, and 11 papers were included in the evidence synthesis. One study was a feasibility randomised controlled trial, three were process evaluations and seven used descriptive qualitative approaches. Reported outcomes related to (a) the value of patient and staff involvement in co-production processes; (b) the generation of ideas for changes to processes, practices and clinical environments; and (c) tangible service changes and impacts on patient experiences. Only one study included cost analysis; none reported an economic evaluation. No studies assessed the sustainability of any changes made. Conclusions Despite increasing interest in and advocacy for co-production, there is a lack of rigorous evaluation in acute healthcare settings. Future studies should evaluate clinical and service outcomes as well as the cost-effectiveness of co-production relative to other forms of quality improvement. Potentially broader impacts on the values and behaviours of participants should also be considered.

Post-stroke self-management interventions: a systematic review of effectiveness and investigation of the inclusion of stroke survivors with aphasia

Abstract Purpose: To systematically review self-management interventions to determine their efficacy for people with stroke in relation to any health outcome and to establish whether stroke survivors with aphasia were included. Method: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and IBSS and undertook gray literature searches. Randomized controlled trials were eligible if they included stroke survivors aged 18 + in a “self-management” intervention. Data were extracted by two independent researchers and included an assessment of methodological quality. Results: 24 studies were identified. 11 out of 24 reported statistically significant benefits in favor of self-management. However, there were significant limitations in terms of methodological quality, and meta-analyses (n= 8 studies) showed no statistically significant benefit of self-management upon global disability and stroke-specific quality of life at 3 months or ADL at 3 or 6 months follow-up. A review of inclusion and exclusion criteria showed 11 out of 24 (46%) studies reported total or partial exclusion of stroke survivors with aphasia. Four out of 24 (17%) reported the number of stroke survivors with aphasia included. In nine studies (38%) it was unclear whether stroke survivors with aphasia were included or excluded. Conclusions: Robust conclusions regarding the effectiveness of poststroke self-management approaches could not be drawn. Further trials are needed, these should clearly report the population included. Implications for rehabilitation There is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of self-management approaches for stroke survivors. It is unclear whether self-management approaches are suitable for stroke survivors with aphasia, particularly those with moderate or severe aphasia. Further research is needed to understand the optimal timing for self-management in the stroke pathway and the format in which self-management support should be offered.

Disciplinary power and the process of training informal carers on stroke units

This article examines the process of training informal carers on stroke units using the lens of power. Care is usually assumed as a kinship obligation but the state has long had an interest in framing the carer and caring work. Training carers in healthcare settings raises questions about the power of the state and healthcare professionals as its agents to shape expectations and practices related to the caring role. Drawing on Foucaults notion of disciplinary power, we show how disciplinary forms of power exercised in interactions between healthcare professionals and carers shape the engagement and resistance of carers in the process of training. Interview and observational field note extracts are drawn from a multi-sited study of a training programme on stroke units targeting family carers of people with stroke to consider the consequences of subjecting caring to this intervention. We found that the process of training informal carers on stroke units was not simply a matter of transferring skills from professional to lay person, but entailed disciplinary forms of power intended to shape the conduct of the carer. We interrogate the extent to which a specific kind of carer is produced through such an approach, and the wider implications for the participation of carers in training in healthcare settings and the empowerment of carers.

Longer-term needs of stroke survivors with communication difficulties living in the community: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

Objective To review and synthesise qualitative literature relating to the longer-term needs of community dwelling stroke survivors with communication difficulties including aphasia, dysarthria and apraxia of speech. Design Systematic review and thematic synthesis. Method We included studies employing qualitative methodology which focused on the perceived or expressed needs, views or experiences of stroke survivors with communication difficulties in relation to the day-to-day management of their condition following hospital discharge. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and AMED and undertook grey literature searches. Studies were assessed for methodological quality by two researchers independently and the findings were combined using thematic synthesis. Results Thirty-two studies were included in the thematic synthesis. The synthesis reveals the ongoing difficulties stroke survivors can experience in coming to terms with the loss of communication and in adapting to life with a communication difficulty. While some were able to adjust, others struggled to maintain their social networks and to participate in activities which were meaningful to them. The challenges experienced by stroke survivors with communication difficulties persisted for many years poststroke. Four themes relating to longer-term need were developed: managing communication outside of the home, creating a meaningful role, creating or maintaining a support network and taking control and actively moving forward with life. Conclusions Understanding the experiences of stroke survivors with communication difficulties is vital for ensuring that longer-term care is designed according to their needs. Wider psychosocial factors must be considered in the rehabilitation of people with poststroke communication difficulties. Self-management interventions may be appropriate to help this subgroup of stroke survivors manage their condition in the longer-term; however, such approaches must be designed to help survivors to manage the unique psychosocial consequences of poststroke communication difficulties.