Back

Implementation of a shared decision making process for severe stroke-a mixed methods study

Visvanathan, A.; Morton, S.; MacRaild, A.; Black, P.; Gilbert, S.; Barber, M.; Dennis, M.; O'Brien, R.; Mead, G. E.

2024-02-23 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2024.02.21.24303139 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundClinical decisions made early after stroke can make the difference between survival with disability or death. We aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a new Shared decision making (SDM) process for severe stroke into a regional 36 bedded stroke unit. MethodsWe developed the process through four coproduction workshops, attempted its implementation then its impact on death at 6 months, discharge destination and tube feeding. We also explored patients, families and staff views about SDM. ResultsEleven people (staff and people with lived experience of stroke) attended the first co-production workshop, eight the second, seven the third and six the fourth. The new SDM process incorporated Tailored Talks (a digital platform with information about stroke and its prognosis) and an implementation plan (including staff training). We implemented this process on 1st August 2022. Only 8/1020 patients received Tailored Talks (4 before and 4 after implementation). For the entire group there was no change tube feeding, discharge destination or death. The proportion of people with severe strokes dead at six months was higher before implementation. Twenty-one patients or family members provided views about SDM quality, but the sample size was too small to draw conclusions. Staff interviews suggested that insufficient time, lack of a human touch and inadequate leadership explained the lack of implementation. ConclusionOur co-produced SDM was not effectively implemented into a stroke unit and there was no change in the use of tube feeding or death in 1020 patients. Key pointsShared decision making after severe stroke is complex. A co-produced new process for shared decision making after severe stroke was not effectively implemented into clinical practice. There was no change in tube feeding, death or institutionalisation.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.