Did a quality improvement collaborative make stroke care better? A cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Stroke can result in death and long-term disability. Fast and high-quality care can reduce the impact of stroke, but UK national audit data has demonstrated variability in compliance with recommended processes of care. Though quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are widely used, whether a QIC could improve reliability of stroke care was unknown. METHODS: Twenty-four NHS hospitals in the Northwest of England were randomly allocated to participate either in Stroke 90:10, a QIC based on the Breakthrough Series (BTS) model, or to a control group giving normal care. The QIC focused on nine processes of quality care for stroke already used in the national stroke audit. The nine processes were grouped into two distinct care bundles: one relating to early hours care and one relating to rehabilitation following stroke. Using an interrupted time series design and difference-in-difference analysis, we aimed to determine whether hospitals participating in the QIC improved more than the control group on bundle compliance. RESULTS: Data were available from nine interventions (3,533 patients) and nine control hospitals (3,059 patients). Hospitals in the QIC showed a modest improvement from baseline in the odds of average compliance equivalent to a relative improvement of 10.9% (95% CI 1.3%, 20.6%) in the Early Hours Bundle and 11.2% (95% CI 1.4%, 21.5%) in the Rehabilitation Bundle. Secondary analysis suggested that some specific processes were more sensitive to an intervention effect. CONCLUSIONS: Some aspects of stroke care improved during the QIC, but the effects of the QIC were modest and further improvement is needed. The extent to which a BTS QIC can improve quality of stroke care remains uncertain. Some aspects of care may respond better to collaboratives than others. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13893902.

The relationship between oncologists and peripheral hospital radiologists in the North-West of England.

AIM: To audit the relationship between Cancer Centre oncologists visiting peripheral hospitals and peripheral hospital radiologists by assessing (i) oncologists' knowledge of local radiological services; (ii) oncologists' perceptions of peripheral radiological services; (iii) peripheral radiologist's perceptions of oncologists; (iv) barriers to communication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to all radiology departments visited by an oncologist, and to all medical and clinical oncologists from two regional oncology centres. RESULTS: The response rate was 100% (21 peripheral hospital radiology departments and all 35 oncologists). (i) Oncologists' knowledge of peripheral hospital imaging modalities was limited (especially MRI and intervention). (ii) 72% of oncologists rated the peripheral hospital radiology service as excellent or good, 46% rated the radiology report quality excellent to good. Deficiencies in oncological reports were identified. (iii) 44% of radiologists thought the oncologist did not relate well with the local radiology department. 50% of radiologists did not know the visiting oncologist's specialist interest. (iv) 69% of oncologists did not regularly attend peripheral hospital clinico-radiological meetings. Lack of written and oral information was hampering both specialties. CONCLUSION: Communication between oncologists and the local radiology department should include: (1) information about local radiology services for visiting oncologists (including trainees) and on the oncology team for radiologists; (2) standardized report content; (3) improved clinical information for radiologists; (4) regular clinico-radiological meetings.