Cargando…

How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the fourth largest cause of death in the UK and a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Policy recommends reviewing patients at six-months post-stroke to identify unmet needs but lacks evidence of effectiveness. This study explored needs identified by patients, how t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abrahamson, Vanessa, Wilson, Patricia M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6624961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31299952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4210-2
_version_ 1783434320282648576
author Abrahamson, Vanessa
Wilson, Patricia M.
author_facet Abrahamson, Vanessa
Wilson, Patricia M.
author_sort Abrahamson, Vanessa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Stroke is the fourth largest cause of death in the UK and a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Policy recommends reviewing patients at six-months post-stroke to identify unmet needs but lacks evidence of effectiveness. This study explored needs identified by patients, how they were addressed by the six-month review (6MR) and whether or not policy aspirations for the review were substantiated by the data. METHODS: A multiple case study design underpinned by critical realism. Data sources included interviews with 46 patients and 28 professionals across three sites in the South East Coast of England. Patients’ interviews coincided with their reviews of which twenty-nine were observed. Thematic analysis of interviews, observations and policy documents was carried out within and across sites. RESULTS: There were ‘hotspots’ in the care pathway where patients and carers felt particularly unsupported. Whilst these gaps exacerbated anxiety, they were neither universal nor ameliorated by review. Patients consistently identified unmet needs related to rehabilitation, information/education and support. Stroke nurse specialists focused on investigations, medication and liaising with general practitioners or consultants while the Stroke Association co-ordinator focused on sign-posting to other services and provision of generic information which not all respondents found helpful. The remit of review was more modest than that of policy aspirations. CONCLUSIONS: The review rests on two causal assumptions: that identifying unmet need will lead to its amelioration; and that provision of information will lead to behaviour change and self-management. While there was some evidence to support the former, there was almost none for the latter. The 6MR would benefit from a patient-led approach to its timing and format; a consistent and individualised approach to stroke education and self-management that is embedded across the care pathway; and targeting reviews should be considered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6624961
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66249612019-07-23 How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review Abrahamson, Vanessa Wilson, Patricia M. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Stroke is the fourth largest cause of death in the UK and a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Policy recommends reviewing patients at six-months post-stroke to identify unmet needs but lacks evidence of effectiveness. This study explored needs identified by patients, how they were addressed by the six-month review (6MR) and whether or not policy aspirations for the review were substantiated by the data. METHODS: A multiple case study design underpinned by critical realism. Data sources included interviews with 46 patients and 28 professionals across three sites in the South East Coast of England. Patients’ interviews coincided with their reviews of which twenty-nine were observed. Thematic analysis of interviews, observations and policy documents was carried out within and across sites. RESULTS: There were ‘hotspots’ in the care pathway where patients and carers felt particularly unsupported. Whilst these gaps exacerbated anxiety, they were neither universal nor ameliorated by review. Patients consistently identified unmet needs related to rehabilitation, information/education and support. Stroke nurse specialists focused on investigations, medication and liaising with general practitioners or consultants while the Stroke Association co-ordinator focused on sign-posting to other services and provision of generic information which not all respondents found helpful. The remit of review was more modest than that of policy aspirations. CONCLUSIONS: The review rests on two causal assumptions: that identifying unmet need will lead to its amelioration; and that provision of information will lead to behaviour change and self-management. While there was some evidence to support the former, there was almost none for the latter. The 6MR would benefit from a patient-led approach to its timing and format; a consistent and individualised approach to stroke education and self-management that is embedded across the care pathway; and targeting reviews should be considered. BioMed Central 2019-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6624961/ /pubmed/31299952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4210-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 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.
spellingShingle Research Article
Abrahamson, Vanessa
Wilson, Patricia M.
How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review
title How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review
title_full How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review
title_fullStr How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review
title_full_unstemmed How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review
title_short How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review
title_sort how unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? a policy analysis of the six-month review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6624961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31299952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4210-2
work_keys_str_mv AT abrahamsonvanessa howunmetareunmetneedspoststrokeapolicyanalysisofthesixmonthreview
AT wilsonpatriciam howunmetareunmetneedspoststrokeapolicyanalysisofthesixmonthreview