Challenges of delivering evidence-based stroke services for rural areas in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to use current stroke care guidelines to identify and discuss current stroke care challenges in rural Australian health care and potential solutions for delivery of evidence-based practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A review of national guidelines since 2002 for organised stroke care was undertaken to determine best practice for delivering primary stroke care. We then employed a narrative literature review strategy looking at relevant articles, based on keywords, outlining current stroke service availability in Australia, highlighting the challenges of implementing evidence-based stroke care in rural areas in Australia based on the current guidelines. RESULTS: Delivery of evidence-based stroke care in rural Australia is fraught with challenges. Although national best-practice guidelines for stroke care are well established, the recommendations made in these guidelines do not always reflect the resource availability in rural Australia. Redesigning processes and utilising available resources, such as telemedicine or local clinical pathways, can achieve an evidence-based standard; however, ultimately better resourcing of these areas is required. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based stroke care, aligned with current national standards is the key to providing adequate stroke services in rural Australia. Improved health service resourcing and better utilisation of currently available resources are options for achieving elements of evidence-based stroke care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Availability of adequate services for stroke patients directly impacts public health as it determines health outcomes for these patients. Indirect implications for public health include the effects on health professionals and the general public.

An academic perspective of participation in healthcare redesign.

Healthcare redesign, based on building collaborative capacity between academic and clinical partners, should create a method to facilitate flow between the key elements of health service improvement. However, utilising the skills and resources of an organisation outside of the health facility may not always have the desired effect. Accountability and mutually respectful relationships are fundamental for collaborative, sustainable and successful completion of clinical research projects. This paper provides an academic perspective of both the benefits of academic involvement in facilitating healthcare redesign processes as well as the potential pitfalls of involving external partner institutions in internal healthcare redesign projects.

Patient and Family Involvement: A Discussion of Co-Led Redesign of Healthcare Services.

The involvement of patients and their families in the redesign of healthcare services is an important option in providing a service that addresses the patients' needs and improves health outcomes. However, it is a resource-intensive approach, and it is currently not clear when it should be used, and what should be the reasoning behind this decision. Some health systems of international standing have created a patient engagement program as a selling point. This paper discusses how co-led redesign can be beneficial in improving health service and more effectively engaging patients. Potential barriers for patient involvement are discussed. Patient involvement can be integrated into the health system at three main levels of engagement: direct care, organizational design and governance, and policy-making. The aim of this paper is to describe how co-led redesign is compatible with different levels of patient involvement and to address the challenges in delivering a co-led redesign in healthcare. Co-led redesign not only involves the collection of quantitative data for assessing the current systems but also the collection of qualitative data through patient, family, and staff interviews to determine the barriers to patient satisfaction. Co-led redesign is a resource-rich process that requires expertise in data collection and a clinical group that is devoted to implementing recommended changes. Currently, a number of countries have utilized co-led redesign for many different types of healthcare services. Resource availability and cost, process time, and lack of outcome measures are three major limiting factors.