How are balance and mobility problems after stroke treated in England? An observational study of the content, dose and context of physiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the dose, intensity and context of physiotherapy for balance and mobility problems after stroke. DESIGN: Process mapping to describe the context and non-participant observation of therapy sessions to describe the dose and content of therapy. SETTING: Four inpatient stroke units in North-West England. PARTICIPANTS: Therapy staff and previously mobile stroke survivors who were treating, or receiving treatment for balance and mobility problems in the participating units. RESULTS: Two units were stand-alone rehabilitation units; two offered a service at the weekends. One had no access to community-based rehabilitation. All had dedicated treatment facilities but often did not use them because of lack of space and difficulty transporting patients. Twenty-two patients participated and 100 treatment sessions were observed. Practicing walking, sit-to-stand and transfers were the most frequent objectives and interventions usually with the therapist(s) physically facilitating the patient's movements. The dose of practise was low; mean repetitions of sit-to-stand per session was 5 (SD 6.4); mean time spent upright per session was 11.24 (SD = 7) minutes, and mean number of steps per session was 202 (SD 118). The mean number of staff per patient was 2.1 (SD = 0.6, mode = 2), usually involving two qualified therapists. Falls prevention or management, wheelchair skills and bed mobility were not practised. CONCLUSION: Stroke physiotherapy for balance and mobility problems features low-dose, low-intensity therapist-led practice, mainly of walking and sit-to-stand. Staff:patient ratios were high. Therapists need to organize treatment sessions to maximize the intensity of functional task practice.

Bespoke versus off-the-shelf ankle-foot orthosis for people with stroke: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the effect of two designs of ankle-foot orthosis on people with stroke. DESIGN: The study design was an assessor-blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The setting was community stroke services. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 139 community-dwelling stroke survivors with limited mobility were recruited. INTERVENTIONS: The two most commonly used types of ankle-foot orthosis (bespoke and off-the-shelf) were chosen. MAIN MEASURES: The main measures of the study were as follows: short- (6 weeks) and long-term (12 weeks) effects on stroke survivors' satisfaction; adverse events; mobility (Walking Handicap Scale); fear of falling (Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I)) and walking impairments (gait speed and step length using the 5-m walk test). RESULTS: Long-term satisfaction was non-significantly higher in the off-the-shelf group: 72% versus 64%; OR (95% CI) = 0.64 (0.31 to 1.3); P = 0.21. No statistically significant differences were found between the orthoses except that the off-the-shelf group had less fear of falling at short-term follow-up than the bespoke group: mean difference (95% CI) = -4.6 (-7.6 to -1.6) points on the FES-I; P = 0.003. CONCLUSION: No differences between off-the-shelf and bespoke ankle-foot orthoses were found except that participants in the off-the-shelf orthosis group had less fear of falling at short-term follow-up.

How active are patients in setting goals during rehabilitation after stroke? A qualitative study of clinician perceptions.

PURPOSE: We investigated stroke rehabilitation clinician's perceptions of the patient as an active partner in setting goals within stroke rehabilitation and factors that influence patient engagement. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews, subject to general inductive analysis with 20 Clinicians' working in three UK based stroke rehabilitation teams (one in-patient ward and two community based rehabilitation teams). RESULTS: There were three key themes that impacted on the patients active involvement in setting goals for rehabilitation after stroke: Patient barriers to goal setting (knowledge of the patient and family, who is the patient and the stroke's impact); How we work as a team (the role of the patient in setting goals, the effect of clinician attributes on goal setting); and How systems impact goal setting (goal-setting practice, home versus hospital, and professional/funder expectations of clinicians'). CONCLUSIONS: Goal setting served a range of different, sometimes conflicting, functions within rehabilitation. Clinicians' identified the integral nature of goals to engage and motivate patients and to provide direction and purpose for rehabilitation. Further, there was an identified need to consider the impact of prioritizing clinician-derived goals at the expense of patient-identified goals. Lastly the reliance on the SMART goal format requires further consideration, both in terms of the proposed benefits and whether they disempower the patient during rehabilitation. Implications for rehabilitation Goal setting is often promoted as a relatively simple, straightforward way to structure interactions with patients Patient-related factors together with resourcing constraints are significant barriers to patient-centered goal setting, particularly during inpatient rehabilitation Clinicians need to have pragmatic tools that can be integrated into practice to ensure that goal-setting practice can be maximized for patients with different intrinsic characteristics.

A multicentre study of how goal-setting is practised during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To describe goal-setting during inpatient stroke rehabilitation. DESIGN: There were two stages: an electronic questionnaire for multidisciplinary teams and an analysis of goal-setting documentation for rehabilitation patients. SETTING: Five inpatient stroke units. PARTICIPANTS: Staff involved in goal-setting and patients undergoing stroke rehabilitation. RESULTS: A total of 13 therapists and 49 patients were recruited, and 351 documented goals were examined. All units used therapist-led goal-setting (60% of goals were set by therapists). In total, 72% of goals were patient-focused but patients and families were rarely directly involved. Goals focussed on basic mobility and activities of daily living (~50% and ~25% of goals, respectively). Only 41% of documented goals met the SMART criteria. Review of progress was limited: 48% of goals were never reviewed and 24% of the remainder were merely marked as 'ongoing' without a date or plan for completion. New goals and actions were often documented without any connection to previous goals. Integration between goals and treatment/action plans was mixed. In two units, goals were unconnected to a treatment or action plan, but for the remainder it was 90%-100%. However, that connection was generally vague and amounted to suggestions of the type of treatment modality that staff might employ. CONCLUSION: Goal-setting during inpatient stroke rehabilitation is therapist-led but discussed with the multidisciplinary team. Therapists mainly identified patient-focussed mobility and activities of daily living goals. Monitoring progress and revising goals were often uncompleted. Links between goals and treatment, action plans and progress were patchy.

What are the barriers and facilitators to goal-setting during rehabilitation for stroke and other acquired brain injuries? A systematic review and meta-synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the barriers and facilitators to goal-setting during rehabilitation for stroke and other acquired brain injuries. DATA SOURCES: AMED, Proquest, CINAHL and MEDLINE. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and undertook thematic content analysis for papers examining the barriers and facilitators to goal-setting during stroke/neurological rehabilitation (any design). Last searches were completed in May 2016. RESULTS: Nine qualitative papers were selected, involving 202 participants in total: 88 patients, 89 health care professionals and 25 relatives of participating patients. Main barriers were: Differences in staff and patients perspectives of goal-setting; patient-related barriers; staff-related barriers, and organisational level barriers. Main facilitators were: individually tailored goal-setting processes, strategies to promote communication and understanding, and strategies to avoid disappointment and unrealistic goals. In addition, patients' and staff's knowledge, experience, skill, and engagement with goal-setting could be either a barrier (if these aspects were absent) or a facilitator (if they were present). CONCLUSION: The main barriers and facilitators to goal-setting during stroke rehabilitation have been identified. They suggest that current methods of goal-setting during inpatient/early stage stroke or neurological rehabilitation are not fit for purpose.

Health care professionals' views of the factors influencing the decision to refer patients to a stroke rehabilitation trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective recruitment is an essential element of successful research but notoriously difficult to achieve. This article examines health care professionals' views on the factors influencing decision-making regarding referral to a stroke rehabilitation trial. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and a card-sorting task were undertaken with stroke service staff in acute and community hospital trusts. Data analysis used a thematic framework approach. RESULTS: Twenty-seven qualified health care professionals from 12 (6 acute and 6 community) hospital trusts and one charity participated. Four main factors emerged: patient-related, professional views, the organisation and research logistics, which all contributed to staff's decision about whether to refer patients to a trial. Clinicians identified patient-related factors as the most frequent influence and considered themselves the patients' advocate. They used their knowledge of the patient to anticipate the patients' reaction to possible participation and tended to only refer those whom they perceived would respond positively. Participants also identified experience of research, a sense of ownership of the project and a positive view of the intervention being evaluated as factors influencing referral. The need to prioritise clinical matters, meet managerial demands and cope with constant change were organisational factors impacting negatively on referral. Staff often simply forgot about recruitment in the face of other higher priorities. Quick, simple, flexible research processes that were closely aligned with existing ways of working were felt to facilitate recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Patient- and professional-related factors were the most frequent influence on clinicians' recruitment decisions, which often had a 'gate-keeping' effect. Managerial and clinical responsibility to juggle multiple (often higher) priorities was also an important factor. To facilitate recruitment, researchers need to develop strategies to approach potential participants as directly as possible to enable them to make their own decisions about participation; ensure that research processes are as quick and simple as possible; align with existing clinical pathways and systems; and give regular reminders and ongoing support to promote recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, 98287938 . Registered 6 May 2015.

Iron indenyl carbonyl compounds: CO-releasing molecules.

New CO-releasing molecules, CO-RMs, based on indenyl iron carbonyls have been identified. Half-lives for carbon monoxide (CO) release, (1)H NMR, (13)C NMR, IR, mass spectra, elemental analysis and biological data have been determined for the compounds. Limited correlations have been made between half-lives and ΔG(‡) for CO release and spectroscopic parameters, ν(CO) and δ((13)CO). X-ray structures have been determined for [Fe(η(5)-C(9)H(7))(CO)(2)L][BF(4)] where L is CO, NCMe, PPh(3), P(OPh)(3), NC(5)H(5) or 1-methylimidazole. Improved preparations of [Fe(η(5)-C(9)H(7))(CO)(2)](2) and [Fe(η(5)-C(9)H(7))(CO)(3)][BF(4)] are reported.

Tris(5-methyl-3-phenyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)methane.

The first crystal structure of a second-generation tris-(pyrazol-yl)methane, namely the title compound, C(31)H(28)N(6), is reported. The mol-ecule exhibits a helical conformation with an average twist of 35.1°. In addition, there are C-H⋯π inter-actions of 3.202 (2) Šbetween the pyrazole C-H group and neighbouring phenyl groups.