Preferences, barriers and facilitators for establishing comprehensive stroke units: a multidisciplinary survey
Fintan O’Rourke A B C , Daniel K.Y. Chan A B , Daniel L. Chan B and Xiao Man Ding AA Department of Aged Care, Stroke & Rehabilitation, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Locked Mail Bag 1600, Bankstown, NSW 1885, Australia. Email: Daniel.Chan@sswahs.nsw.gov.au, dingxiaoman@hotmail.com
B Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia. Email: daniellchan@gmail.com
C Corresponding author. Email: Fintan.O’Rourke@swsahs.nsw.gov.au
Submitted: 7 March 2012 Accepted: 17 December 2012 Published: 24 May 2013
Abstract
Objectives. To determine the preferences of multidisciplinary stroke clinicians for models of inpatient stroke unit care and perceived barriers to establishing a comprehensive stroke unit (CSU) model (acute and rehabilitation care in the same ward).
Methods. Written questionnaires distributed and completed at multidisciplinary stroke unit case conferences in NSW, Australia.
Results. Twenty hospitals with 22 stroke units were surveyed, 13 acute stroke units, 7 rehabilitation stroke units, 2 CSUs. Two hundred and twenty-eight respondents: 99 (43.4%) allied health, 72 (31.6%) nurses and 57 (25.0%) doctors. One hundred and fifty-one respondents (67.0%) thought CSU to be the best model. Seventy-three % of doctors and 79% of allied health preferred CSU v. 57% of nurses (P = 0.041). Of doctors, rehabilitation specialists were most likely to favour comprehensive model (84.2%) and neurologists least (57.0%). The main perceived advantages of CSU were reduced cost and improved functional outcomes; perceived disadvantages were increased workload and unwell patients unable to participate in rehabilitation. Main perceived barriers to establishing CSU were lack of space, money, staffing and time.
Conclusion. Although most current stroke unit care in NSW is based on the traditional model of acute and rehabilitation components in separate wards or hospitals, the majority of multidisciplinary stroke team clinicians believe CSU is the optimum model.
What is known about the topic? Stroke unit care is known to improve survival and dependency but the optimum model of care is unproven, despite some small studies suggesting that the CSU model may result in better outcomes.
What does this paper add? This paper is the first to survey stroke clinicians from various disciplines and types of unit, to determine their preferences for stroke unit model.
What are the implications for practitioners? A majority of clinicians expressed a preference for the CSU model, suggesting that most would be comfortable caring for patients in both acute and rehabilitation phases of stroke care if further such units are established.
Additional keywords: acute stroke care, model of stroke, stroke rehabilitation, survey.
References
[1] World Health Organization. The world health report 2007 – A safer future: global public health security in the 21st century; 2007. Available at http://www.who.int/whr/2007/en/index.html [verified 15 March 2013][2] Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 2006; 367 1747–57.
| Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors: systematic analysis of population health data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16731270PubMed |
[3] Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. Organized inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11869570 [update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000: CD000197; PMID: 10796318]
[4] Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration Organized inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; CD000197
| Organized inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17943737PubMed |
[5] Stroke Unit Trialists Collaboration How do stroke units improve patient outcomes? A collaborative systematic review of the randomized trials. Stroke 1997; 28 2139–44.
| How do stroke units improve patient outcomes? A collaborative systematic review of the randomized trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 9368554PubMed |
[6] Ang YH, Chan DKY, Heng D. Patient outcomes and length of stay in a stroke unit offering both acute and rehabilitation services. Med J Aust 2003; 178 333–6.
| 12670276PubMed |
[7] Foley N, Salter K, Teasell R. A meta-analysis comparing three models of care. Cerebrovasc Dis 2007; 23 194–202.
| A meta-analysis comparing three models of care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17143003PubMed |
[8] Chiu A, Shen Q, Cheuk G, Cordato D, Chan DKY. Establishment of a stroke unit in a district hospital: review of experience. Intern Med J 2007; 37 73–8.
| Establishment of a stroke unit in a district hospital: review of experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2s%2Fjt1Crtw%3D%3D&md5=87396c982625a8f54062aaa708a63105CAS | 17229248PubMed | 17229248PubMed |
[9] Chan DKY, Cordato D, O’Rourke F, Chan DL, Pollack M, Middleton S, et al Comprehensive Stroke Units: A Review of Comparative Evidence and Experience. Int J Stroke 2012;
| Comprehensive Stroke Units: A Review of Comparative Evidence and Experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Alberts MJ, Latchaw RE, Selman WR, Shephard T, Hadley MN, Brass LM, et al Recommendations for Comprehensive Stroke Centers: A Consensus Statement from the Brain Attack Coalition. Stroke 2005; 36 1597–616.
| Recommendations for Comprehensive Stroke Centers: A Consensus Statement from the Brain Attack Coalition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15961715PubMed | 15961715PubMed |
[11] Indredavik B, Bakke F, Slordahl SA, Rokseth R, Hâheim LL. Treatment in a combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit: which aspects are most important? Stroke 1999; 30 917–23.
| Treatment in a combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit: which aspects are most important?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3kvVejtA%3D%3D&md5=354726f2a1f4bfb83e7dde203bbc6620CAS | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3kvVejtA%3D%3D&md5=354726f2a1f4bfb83e7dde203bbc6620CAS | 10229720PubMed | 10229720PubMed |
[12] Langhorne P, Pollock A. What are the components of effective stroke unit care? Age Ageing 2002; 31 365–71.
| What are the components of effective stroke unit care?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12242199PubMed | 12242199PubMed |
[13] Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, Knapp M, Donaldson N, Swift CG. Alternative strategies for stroke care: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 356 894–9.
| Alternative strategies for stroke care: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvos1CntA%3D%3D&md5=988faf9133ca99e72dfbd7c6e37da096CAS | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvos1CntA%3D%3D&md5=988faf9133ca99e72dfbd7c6e37da096CAS | 11036894PubMed | 11036894PubMed |
[14] Zhu HF, Newcommon NN, Cooper ME, Green TL, Seal B, Klein G. Impact of a stroke unit on length of hospital stay and in-hospital case fatality. Stroke 2009; 40 18–23.
| Impact of a stroke unit on length of hospital stay and in-hospital case fatality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19008467PubMed | 19008467PubMed |
[15] Cumming TB, Collier J, Thrift AG, Bernhardt J. The effect of very early mobilization after stroke on psychological well-being. J Rehabil Med 2008; 40 609–14.
| The effect of very early mobilization after stroke on psychological well-being.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19020693PubMed | 19020693PubMed |
