Defining ready for discharge from sub-acute care: a qualitative exploration from multiple stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Planning discharges from subacute care facilities is becoming increasingly complex due to an ageing population and a high demand on services. The use of non-standardised assessments to determine a patient's readiness for discharge places a heavy reliance on a clinician's judgement which can be influenced by system pressures, past experiences and team dynamics. The current literature focusses heavily on discharge-readiness from clinicians' perspectives and in the acute care setting. This paper aimed to explore the perceptions of discharge-readiness from the perspectives of key stakeholders in subacute care: inpatients, family members, clinicians and managers. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted, exploring the views of inpatients (n = 16), family members (n = 16), clinicians (n = 17) and managers (n = 12). Participants with cognitive deficits and those who did not speak English were excluded from this study. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted and audio-recorded. Following transcription, inductive thematic analysis was completed. RESULTS: Participants identified that there are both patient-related and environmental factors that influence discharge-readiness. Patient-related factors discussed included continence, functional mobility, cognition, pain and medication management skills. Environmental factors centred around the discharge (home) environment, and were suggested to include a safe physical environment alongside a robust social environment which was suggested to assist to fill any gaps in functional capabilities (i.e. patient-related factors). CONCLUSIONS: These findings make a unique contribution to the literature by providing a thorough exploration of determining discharge-readiness as a combined narrative from the perspectives from key stakeholders. Findings from this qualitative study identified key personal and environmental factors influencing patients' discharge-readiness, which may allow health services to streamline the determination of discharge-readiness from subacute care. Understanding how these factors might be assessed within a discharge pathway warrants further attention.

Implementation of offering choice of pulmonary rehabilitation location to people with COPD: a protocol for the process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a core component of management people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); yet, people with COPD face significant barriers to attending centre-based PR programs. The emergence of new models of PR, remotely delivered directly into people's homes, has the potential to improve rehabilitation access and completion by providing patients with a choice of rehabilitation location (centre or home). However, offering patients a choice of rehabilitation model is not usual practice. We are undertaking a 14-site cluster randomised controlled trial to determine whether offering choice of PR location improves rehabilitation completion rates resulting in reduced all-cause unplanned hospitalisation over 12 months. The aim of this paper is to describe the protocol for the process evaluation of the HomeBase2 trial. METHODS: A mixed methods process evaluation, to be undertaken in real time, has been developed in accordance with UK Medical Research Council (MRC) recommendations on process evaluation of complex interventions. This protocol describes the intended use of two theoretical frameworks (RE-AIM framework (Reach; Effectiveness; Adoption; Implementation; Maintenance) and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)) to synthesise findings and interpret data from a combination of qualitative (semi-structured interviews) and quantitative (questionnaires, clinical outcome data, intervention fidelity) methodologies. Data will be collected at an intervention, patient and clinician level. Qualitative and quantitative data will be used to derive context-specific potential and actual barriers and facilitators to offering patients choice of rehabilitation location. Acceptability and sustainability of the intervention will be evaluated for future scale-up. DISCUSSION: The process evaluation described here will appraise the clinical implementation of offering a choice of rehabilitation program location for people with COPD. It will identify and evaluate key factors for future scale-up and sustainability and scale-up of offering choice of pulmonary rehabilitation program model for people. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04217330 Registration date: January 3 2020.

Remote constraint induced therapy of the upper extremity (ReCITE): A feasibility study protocol.

Background: Difficulty using the upper extremity in everyday activities is common after stroke. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) has been shown to be effective in both sub-acute and chronic phases of stroke recovery and is recommended in clinical practice guidelines for stroke internationally. Despite reports of equivalence of outcome when stroke rehabilitation interventions are delivered using telehealth, there has been limited evaluation of CIMT when using this mode of delivery. ReCITE will (a) evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of CIMT when delivered via telehealth to stroke survivors (TeleCIMT) and (b) explore therapists' experiences and use of an online support package inclusive of training, mentoring and resources to support TeleCIMT delivery in clinical practice. Methods: A prospective single-group, single blinded, study design with embedded process evaluation will be conducted. The study will be conducted at three outpatient services in Sydney, Australia. A multi-faceted therapist support package, informed by the Capabilities, Opportunity, Motivation- Behaviour model (COM-B), will be used to support occupational therapists to implement TeleCIMT as part of routine care to stroke survivors. Each service will recruit 10 stroke survivor participants (n = 30) with mild to moderate upper extremity impairment. Upper extremity and quality of life outcomes of stroke survivor participants will be collected at baseline, post-intervention and at a 4 week follow-up appointment. Feasibility of TeleCIMT will be evaluated by assessing the number of stroke participants who complete 80% of intensive arm practice prescribed during their 3 week program (i.e., at least 24 h of intensive arm practice). Acceptability will be investigated through qualitative interviews and surveys with stroke survivors, supporter surveys and therapist focus groups. Qualitative interviews with therapists will provide additional data to explore their experiences and use of the online support package. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid transition to delivering telehealth. The proposed study will investigate the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a complex intervention via telehealth to stroke survivors at home, and the support that therapists and patients require for delivery. The findings of the study will be used to inform whether a larger, randomized controlled trial is feasible.

Remote constraint induced therapy of the upper extremity (ReCITE): A feasibility study protocol

Background Difficulty using the upper extremity in everyday activities is common after stroke. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) has been shown to be effective in both sub-acute and chronic phases of stroke recovery and is recommended in clinical practice guidelines for stroke internationally. Despite reports of equivalence of outcome when stroke rehabilitation interventions are delivered using telehealth, there has been limited evaluation of CIMT when using this mode of delivery. ReCITE will (a) evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of CIMT when delivered via telehealth to stroke survivors (TeleCIMT) and (b) explore therapists' experiences and use of an online support package inclusive of training, mentoring and resources to support TeleCIMT delivery in clinical practice. Methods A prospective single-group, single blinded, study design with embedded process evaluation will be conducted. The study will be conducted at three outpatient services in Sydney, Australia. A multi-faceted therapist support package, informed by the Capabilities, Opportunity, Motivation- Behaviour model (COM-B), will be used to support occupational therapists to implement TeleCIMT as part of routine care to stroke survivors. Each service will recruit 10 stroke survivor participants (n = 30) with mild to moderate upper extremity impairment. Upper extremity and quality of life outcomes of stroke survivor participants will be collected at baseline, post-intervention and at a 4 week follow-up appointment. Feasibility of TeleCIMT will be evaluated by assessing the number of stroke participants who complete 80% of intensive arm practice prescribed during their 3 week program (i.e., at least 24 h of intensive arm practice). Acceptability will be investigated through qualitative interviews and surveys with stroke survivors, supporter surveys and therapist focus groups. Qualitative interviews with therapists will provide additional data to explore their experiences and use of the online support package. Discussion The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid transition to delivering telehealth. The proposed study will investigate the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a complex intervention via telehealth to stroke survivors at home, and the support that therapists and patients require for delivery. The findings of the study will be used to inform whether a larger, randomized controlled trial is feasible.

Effect of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on the Quality of Stroke Care in Stroke Units and Alternative Wards: A National Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Changes to hospital systems were implemented from March 2020 in Australia in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, including decreased resources allocated to stroke units. We investigate changes in the quality of acute care for patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack during the pandemic according to patients' treatment setting (stroke unit or alternate ward). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with stroke or transient ischemic attack between January 2019 and June 2020 in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR). The AuSCR monitors patients' treatment setting, provision of allied health and nursing interventions, prescription of secondary prevention medications, and discharge destination. Weekly trends in the quality of care before and during the pandemic period were assessed using interrupted time series analyses. RESULTS: In total, 18,662 patients in 2019 and 8,850 patients in 2020 were included. Overall, 75% were treated in stroke units. Before the pandemic, treatment in a stroke unit was superior to alternate wards for the provision of all evidence-based therapies assessed. During the pandemic period, the proportion of patients receiving a swallow screen or assessment, being discharged to rehabilitation, and being prescribed secondary prevention medications decreased by 0.58% to 1.08% per week in patients treated in other ward settings relative to patients treated in stroke units. This change represented a 9% to 17% increase in the care gap between these treatment settings during the period of the pandemic that was evaluated (16 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: During the first 6 months of the pandemic, widening care disparities between stroke units and alternate wards have occurred.

Protocol of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke (ReCAPS).

RATIONALE: To address unmet needs, electronic messages to support person-centered goal attainment and secondary prevention may avoid hospital presentations/readmissions after stroke, but evidence is limited. HYPOTHESIS: Compared to control participants, there will be a 10% lower proportion of intervention participants who represent to hospital (emergency/admission) within 90 days of randomization. METHODS AND DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. The intervention group receives 12 weeks of personalized, goal-centered, and administrative electronic messages, while the control group only receive administrative messages. The trial includes a process evaluation, assessment of treatment fidelity, and an economic evaluation. Participants: Confirmed stroke (modified Rankin Score: 0-4), aged ≥18 years with internet/mobile phone access, discharged directly home from hospital. Randomization: 1:1 computer-generated, stratified by age and baseline disability. Outcomes assessments: Collected at 90 days and 12 months following randomization. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes include hospital emergency presentations/admissions within 90 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes include goal attainment, self-efficacy, mood, unmet needs, disability, quality-of-life, recurrent stroke/cardiovascular events/deaths at 90 days and 12 months, and death and cost-effectiveness at 12 months. Sample size: To test our primary hypothesis, we estimated a sample size of 890 participants (445 per group) with 80% power and two-tailed significance threshold of α = 0.05. Given uncertainty for the effect size of this novel intervention, the sample size will be adaptively re-estimated when outcomes for n = 668 are obtained, with maximum sample capped at 1100. DISCUSSION: We will provide new evidence on the potential effectiveness, implementation, and cost-effectiveness of a tailored eHealth intervention for survivors of stroke.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Care for Stroke in Australia: Emerging Evidence From the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry.

We present information on acute stroke care for the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia using data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR). The first case of COVID-19 in Australia was recorded in late January 2020 and national restrictions to control the virus commenced in March. To account for seasonal effects of stroke admissions, patient-level data from the registry from January to June 2020 were compared to the same period in 2019 (historical-control) from 61 public hospitals. We compared periods using descriptive statistics and performed interrupted time series analyses. Perceptions of stroke clinicians were obtained from 53/72 (74%) hospitals participating in the AuSCR (80% nurses) via a voluntary, electronic feedback survey. Survey data were summarized to provide contextual information for the registry-based analysis. Data from the registry covered locations that had 91% of Australian COVID-19 cases to the end of June 2020. For the historical-control period, 9,308 episodes of care were compared with the pandemic period (8,992 episodes). Patient characteristics were similar for each cohort (median age: 75 years; 56% male; ischemic stroke 69%). Treatment in stroke units decreased progressively during the pandemic period (control: 76% pandemic: 70%, p < 0.001). Clinical staff reported fewer resources available for stroke including 10% reporting reduced stroke unit beds. Several time-based metrics were unchanged whereas door-to-needle times were longer during the peak pandemic period (March-April, 2020; 82 min, control: 74 min, p = 0.012). Our data emphasize the need to maintain appropriate acute stroke care during times of national emergency such as pandemic management.

A Brief Intervention to Support Implementation of Telerehabilitation by Community Rehabilitation Services During COVID-19: A Feasibility Study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated adoption of telerehabilitation in services where face-to-face consultations were previously standard. We aimed to understand barriers to implementing a telerehabilitation clinical service and design a behavior support strategy for clinicians to implement telerehabilitation. A hybrid implementation study design included pre- and post-intervention questionnaires, identification of key barriers to implementation using the theoretical domains framework, and development of a targeted intervention. Thirty-one clinicians completed baseline questionnaires identifying key barriers to the implementation of telerehabilitation. Barriers were associated with behavior domains of knowledge, environment, social influences, and beliefs. A 6-week brief intervention focused on remote clinician support, and education was well received but achieved little change in perceived barriers to implementation. The brief intervention to support implementation of telerehabilitation during COVID-19 achieved clinical practice change, but barriers remain. Longer follow-up may determine the sustainability of a brief implementation strategy, but needs to consider pandemic-related stressors.