20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementing a complex rehabilitation intervention in a stroke trial: a qualitative process evaluation of AVERT

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The implementation of multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation interventions is challenging, even when the intervention is evidence-based. Very little is known about the implementation of complex interventions in rehabilitation clinical trials.

          The aim of study was to better understand how the implementation of a rehabilitation intervention in a clinical trial within acute stroke units is experienced by the staff involved. This qualitative process evaluation was part of a large Phase III stroke rehabilitation trial (AVERT).

          Methods

          A descriptive qualitative approach was used. We purposively sampled 53 allied health and nursing staff from 19 acute stroke units in Australia, New Zealand and Scotland. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone, voice-internet, or face to face. Digitally recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed by two researchers using rigorous thematic analysis.

          Results

          Our analysis uncovered ten important themes that provide insight into the challenges of implementing complex new rehabilitation practices within complex care settings, plus factors and strategies that assisted implementation. Themes were grouped into three main categories: staff experience of implementing the trial intervention, barriers to implementation, and overcoming the barriers. Participation in the trial was challenging but had personal rewards and improved teamwork at some sites. Over the years that the trial ran some staff perceived a change in usual care. Barriers to trial implementation at some sites included poor teamwork, inadequate staffing, various organisational barriers, staff attitudes and beliefs, and patient-related barriers. Participants described successful implementation strategies that were built on interdisciplinary teamwork, education and strong leadership to ‘get staff on board’, and developing different ways of working.

          Conclusions

          The AVERT stroke rehabilitation trial required commitment to deliver an intervention that needed strong collaboration between nurses and physiotherapists and was different to current care models. This qualitative process evaluation contributes unique insights into factors that may be critical to successful trials teams, and as AVERT was a pragmatic trial, success factors to delivering complex intervention in clinical practice.

          Trial registration

          AVERT registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12606000185561.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0156-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed.

          This review summarizes key factors that have interfered with translation of research to practice and what public health researchers can do to hasten such transfer, focusing on characteristics of interventions, target settings, and research designs. The need to address context and to utilize research, review, and reporting practices that address external validity issues-such as designs that focus on replication, and practical clinical and behavioral trials-are emphasized. Although there has been increased emphasis on social-ecological interventions that go beyond the individual level, interventions often address each component as if it were an independent intervention. Greater attention is needed to connectedness across program levels and components. Finally, examples are provided of evaluation models and current programs that can help accelerate translation of research to practice and policy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Error reduction and performance improvement in the emergency department through formal teamwork training: evaluation results of the MedTeams project.

            To evaluate the effectiveness of training and institutionalizing teamwork behaviors, drawn from aviation crew resource management (CRM) programs, on emergency department (ED) staff organized into caregiver teams. Nine teaching and community hospital EDs. A prospective multicenter evaluation using a quasi-experimental, untreated control group design with one pretest and two posttests of the Emergency Team Coordination Course (ETCC). The experimental group, comprised of 684 physicians, nurses, and technicians, received the ETCC and implemented formal teamwork structures and processes. Assessments occurred prior to training, and at intervals of four and eight months after training. Three outcome constructs were evaluated: team behavior, ED performance, and attitudes and opinions. Trained observers rated ED staff team behaviors and made observations of clinical errors, a measure of ED performance. Staff and patients in the EDs completed surveys measuring attitudes and opinions. Hospital EDs were the units of analysis for the seven outcome measures. Prior to aggregating data at the hospital level, scale properties of surveys and event-related observations were evaluated at the respondent or case level. A statistically significant improvement in quality of team behaviors was shown between the experimental and control groups following training (p = .012). Subjective workload was not affected by the intervention (p = .668). The clinical error rate significantly decreased from 30.9 percent to 4.4 percent in the experimental group (p = .039). In the experimental group, the ED staffs' attitudes toward teamwork increased (p = .047) and staff assessments of institutional support showed a significant increase (p = .040). Our findings point to the effectiveness of formal teamwork training for improving team behaviors, reducing errors, and improving staff attitudes among the ETCC-trained hospitals.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Stroke Survivors' Experiences of Physical Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

              To report and synthesize the perspectives, experiences, and preferences of stroke survivors undertaking inpatient physical rehabilitation through a systematic review of qualitative studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Julie.luker@unisa.edu.au
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                10 May 2016
                10 May 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 52
                Affiliations
                [ ]Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
                [ ]International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
                [ ]Nursing Research Institute, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia
                [ ]Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland UK
                [ ]Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland UK
                [ ]Latrobe University, Melbourne, Australia
                Article
                156
                10.1186/s12874-016-0156-9
                4862225
                27164839
                42cd8873-b194-4598-8b7b-1cb10c85dfbc
                © Luker et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 18 January 2016
                : 5 May 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000925, National Health and Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: APP1052524
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Medicine
                stroke,rehabilitation,clinical trials,clinical research protocol,qualitative research,implementation

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content66

                Cited by20

                Most referenced authors687