An international cluster-randomized quality improvement trial to increase the adherence to evidence-based therapies for acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack patients: Rationale and design of the BRIDGE STROKE Trial

Translation of nurse-initiated protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing following stroke across Europe (QASC Europe): A pre-test/post-test implementation study

Introduction:

Poor adoption of stroke guidelines is a problem internationally. The Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) trial demonstrated significant reduction in death and disability with facilitated implementation of nurse-initiated

Methods:

This was a multi-country, multi-centre, pre-test/post-test study (2017–2021) comparing post implementation data with historically collected pre-implementation data. Hospital clinical champions, supported by the Angels Initiative conducted multidisciplinary workshops discussing pre-implementation medical record audit results, barriers and facilitators to FeSS Protocol implementation, developed action plans and provided education, with ongoing support co-ordinated remotely from Australia. Prospective audits were conducted 3-month after FeSS Protocol introduction. Pre-to-post analysis and country income classification comparisons were adjusted for clustering by hospital and country controlling for age/sex/stroke severity.

Results:

Data from 64 hospitals in 17 countries (3464 patients pre-implementation and 3257 patients post-implementation) showed improvement pre-to-post implementation in measurement recording of all three FeSS components, all p < 0.0001: fever elements (pre: 17%, post: 51%; absolute difference 33%, 95% CI 30%, 37%); hyperglycaemia elements (pre: 18%, post: 52%; absolute difference 34%; 95% CI 31%, 36%); swallowing elements (pre: 39%, post: 67%; absolute difference 29%, 95% CI 26%, 31%) and thus in overall FeSS Protocol adherence (pre: 3.4%, post: 35%; absolute difference 33%, 95% CI 24%, 42%). In exploratory analysis of FeSS adherence by countries’ economic status, high-income versus middle-income countries improved to a comparable extent.

Discussion and conclusion:

Our collaboration resulted in successful rapid implementation and scale-up of FeSS Protocols into countries with vastly different healthcare systems.

"Lessons Learned" Preventing Recurrent Ischemic Strokes through Secondary Prevention Programs: A Systematic Review

Recurrent ischemic strokes are a cause of significant healthcare burdens globally. Patients with uncontrolled vascular risk factors are more likely to develop recurrent ischemic strokes. This study aims to compile information gained from current secondary prevention programs. A pre-defined literature search strategy was applied to PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases, and studies from 1997 to 2020 were evaluated for quality, study aims, and outcomes. The search produced 1175 articles (1092 after duplicates were removed) and titles were screened; 55 titles were retained for the full-text analysis. Of the remaining studies, 31 were retained for assessment, five demonstrated long-term effectiveness, eight demonstrated short-term effectiveness, and 18 demonstrated no effectiveness. The successful studies utilized a variety of different techniques in the categories of physical fitness, education, and adherence to care plans to reduce the risk of recurrent strokes. The lessons we learned from the current prevention programs included (1) offer tailored care for underserved groups, (2) control blood pressure, (3) provide opportunities for medication dosage titration, (4) establish the care plan prior to discharge, (5) invest in supervised exercise programs, (6) remove barriers to accessing care in low resource settings, and (7) improve the transition of care.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

From Three-Months to Five-Years: Sustaining Long-Term Benefits of Endovascular Therapy for Ischemic Stroke

Background and Purpose: During the months and years post-stroke, treatment benefits from endovascular therapy (EVT) may be magnified by disability-related differences in morbidity/mortality or may be eroded by recurrent strokes and non-stroke-related disability/mortality. Understanding the extent to which EVT benefits may be sustained at 5 years, and the factors influencing this outcome, may help us better promote the sustenance of EVT benefits until 5 years post-stroke and beyond.

Methods: In this review, undertaken 5 years after EVT became the standard of care, we searched PubMed and EMBASE to examine the current state of the literature on 5-year post-stroke outcomes, with particular attention to modifiable factors that influence outcomes between 3 months and 5 years post-EVT.

Results: Prospective cohorts and follow-up data from EVT trials indicate that 3-month EVT benefits will likely translate into lower 5-year disability, mortality, institutionalization, and care costs and higher quality of life. However, these group-level data by no means guarantee maintenance of 3-month benefits for individual patients. We identify factors and associated “action items” for stroke teams/systems at three specific levels (medical care, individual psychosocioeconomic, and larger societal/environmental levels) that influence the long-term EVT outcome of a patient. Medical action items include optimizing stroke rehabilitation, clinical follow-up, secondary stroke prevention, infection prevention/control, and post-stroke depression care. Psychosocioeconomic aspects include addressing access to primary care, specialist clinics, and rehabilitation; affordability of healthy lifestyle choices and preventative therapies; and optimization of family/social support and return-to-work options. High-level societal efforts include improving accessibility of public/private spaces and transportation, empowering/engaging persons with disability in society, and investing in treatments/technologies to mitigate consequences of post-stroke disability.

Conclusions: In the longtime horizon from 3 months to 5 years, several factors in the medical and societal spheres could negate EVT benefits. However, many factors can be leveraged to preserve or magnify treatment benefits, with opportunities to share responsibility with widening circles of care around the patient.

Rationale and design of individualized quality improvement based on the Computer Analysing system to improve Stroke management quality Evaluation (CASE): a multicenter historically controlled study

Background

Guideline-based medical care has been identified to improve outcomes in stroke. However, data acquisition and medical quality management during hospital stay still need to be improved in China. We have developed a computer-based medical data collecting system, together with automated calculation of key performance indicators (KPIs) and regular individualized education, and thus aim to explore whether it can improve the medical care quality of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) during hospital stay in stroke centers.

Methods

The individualized quality improvement based on the Computer Analysing system to improve Stroke management quality Evaluation (CASE) trial is a prospective, multicenter, historical control study among 30 stroke centers in China. In this trial, the data is directly extracted from the saved original medical record of each AIS patient during hospital stay, regardless of different Electronic Medical Record System (EMRS) in each center. Then, the automated calculation of KPIs and the regular education via teleconference per month allow the clinicians to examine the causes of non-compliance of guideline-based care and develop programs to decrease their frequency.

Discussion

We compare KPIs between pre-intervention stage and post-intervention stage (without or with education) among stroke centers. If proved effective, this approach might be generalized around China and even worldwide, where a unified EMRS is difficult to be applied and in-patient care needs to be improved.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03684629. Registered on 9 December 2018. Retrospectively registered.

Utstein recommendation for emergency stroke care

Background

Recent advances in treatment for stroke give new possibilities for optimizing outcomes. To deliver these prehospital care needs to become more efficient.

Aim

To develop a framework to support improved delivery of prehospital care. The recommendations are aimed at clinicians involved in prehospital and emergency health systems who will often not be stroke specialists but need clear guidance as to how to develop and deliver safe and effective care for acute stroke patients.

Methods

Building on the successful implementation program from the Global Resuscitation Alliance and the Resuscitation Academy, the Utstein methodology was used to define a generic chain of survival for Emergency Stroke Care by assembling international expertise in Stroke and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Ten programs were identified for Acute Stroke Care to improve survival and outcomes, with recommendations for implementation of best practice.

Conclusions

Efficient prehospital systems for acute stroke will be improved through public awareness, optimized prehospital triage and timely diagnostics, and quick and equitable access to acute treatments. Documentation, use of metrics and transparency will help to build a culture of excellence and accountability.

Effect of a Quality Improvement Intervention on Adherence to Therapies for Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Translating evidence into clinical practice in the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) is challenging, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Objective

To assess the effect of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention on adherence to evidence-based therapies for care of patients with AIS and TIA.

Design, Setting and Participants

This 2-arm cluster-randomized clinical trial assessed 45 hospitals and 2336 patients with AIS and TIA for eligibility before randomization. Eligible hospitals were able to provide care for patients with AIS and TIA in Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. Recruitment started September 12, 2016, and ended February 26, 2018; follow-up ended June 29, 2018. Data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle.

Interventions

The multifaceted quality improvement intervention included case management, reminders, a roadmap and checklist for the therapeutic plan, educational materials, and periodic audit and feedback reports to each intervention cluster.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a composite adherence score for AIS and TIA performance measures. Secondary outcomes included an all-or-none composite end point of performance measures, the individual process measure components of the composite end points, and clinical outcomes at 90 days after admission (stroke recurrence, death, and disability measured by the modified Rankin scale).

Results

A total of 36 hospitals and 1624 patients underwent randomization. Nineteen hospitals were randomized to the quality improvement intervention and 17 to routine care. The overall mean (SD) age of patients enrolled in the study was 69.4 (13.5) years, and 913 (56.2%) were men. Overall mean (SD) composite adherence score for the 10 performance measures in the intervention group hospitals compared with control group hospitals was 85.3% (20.1%) vs 77.8% (18.4%) (mean difference, 4.2%; 95% CI, -3.8% to 12.2%). As a secondary end point, 402 of 817 patients (49.2%) at intervention hospitals received all the therapies that they were eligible for vs 203 of 807 (25.2%) in the control hospitals (odds ratio, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.22-5.53; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

A multifaceted quality improvement intervention did not result in a significant increase in composite adherence score for evidence-based therapies in patients with AIS or TIA. However, when using an all-or-none approach, the intervention resulted in improved adherence to evidence-based therapies.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02223273.

Hypertension and Stroke: Update on Treatment

Stroke is the second most common cause of mortality worldwide and the third most common cause of disability. Hypertension is the most prevalent risk factor for stroke. Stroke causes and haemodynamic consequences are heterogeneous which makes the management of blood pressure in stroke patients complex requiring an accurate diagnosis and precise definition of therapeutic goals. In this article, the authors provide an updated review on the management of arterial hypertension to prevent the first episode and the recurrence. They also present a discussion on blood pressure management in hypertensive urgencies and emergencies, especially in the acute phase of hypertensive encephalopathy, ischaemic stroke and haemorrhagic stroke.