Feasibility of assessing the needs of stroke patients after six months using the GM-SAT

Katy Rothwell, Ruth Boaden, David Bamford, Pippa J Tyrrell, Katy Rothwell, Ruth Boaden, David Bamford, Pippa J Tyrrell

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the feasibility of administering the Greater Manchester Stroke Assessment Tool (GM-SAT), a structured evidence-based needs assessment tool, in a community setting and its acceptability to stroke patients and their carers.

Setting: Community stroke services.

Subjects: One hundred and thirty-seven stroke patients at six months post hospital discharge with no communication or cognitive difficulties residing in their own homes.

Intervention: Patients' needs were assessed by information, advice and support (IAS) coordinators from the UK Stroke Association using the GM-SAT.

Main measures: Number and nature of unmet needs identified and actions required to address these; patient/carer feedback; and IAS coordinator feedback.

Results: The mean number of unmet needs identified was 3 (min 0, max 14; SD 2.5). The most frequently identified unmet needs related to fatigue (34.3%), memory, concentration and attention (25.5%), secondary prevention non-lifestyle (21.9%) and depression (19.0%). It was found that 50.4% of unmet needs could be addressed through the provision of information and advice. Patients/carers found the assessment process valuable and IAS coordinators found the GM-SAT easy to use.

Conclusions: Results demonstrate that the GM-SAT is feasible to administer in the community using IAS coordinators and is acceptable to patients and their carers, as well as staff undertaking the assessments. Further research is needed to determine whether the application of the GM-SAT at six months improves outcomes for patients.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: None.

References

    1. Department of Health The National Service Framework for long term conditions. London: Department of Health, HMSCO, 2005
    1. Murray J, Ashworth R, Forster A, Young J. Developing a primary care based stroke service; a review of the qualitative literature. Br J Gen Pract 2003; 53: 137–142
    1. Murray J, Young J, Forster A, Ashworth R. Developing a primary care-based stroke model: the prevalence of longer-term problems experienced by patients and carers. Br J Gen Pract 2003; 53: 803–807
    1. Hare R, Rogers H, Lester H, McManus RJ, Mant J. What do patients and their carers want from community services? Fam Pract 2005; 23: 131–136
    1. Greveson G, James O. Improving long term outcomes after stroke- the views of patients and carers. Health Trends 1991–1992; 23: 161–162
    1. Brereton L, Nolan M. ‘You do know he’s had a stroke, don’t you?’ Preparation for family care-giving – the neglected dimension. J Clin Nurs 2000; 9: 498–506
    1. Department of Health National Stroke Strategy. London: Department of Health, HMSCO, 2005
    1. Lindsay MP, Gubitz G, Bayley M, et al. Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care (Update 2010). On behalf of the Canadian Stroke Strategy Best Practices and Standards Writing Group. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Stroke Network, 2010
    1. National Stroke Foundation Clinical guidelines for stroke management 2010. Melbourne, Australia: National Stroke Foundation, 2010
    1. Duncan PW, Zorowitz R, Bates B, et al. Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Stroke 2005; 36: e100–143
    1. Murray J, Young J, Forster A. Measuring outcomes in the longer term after a stroke. Clin Rehabil 2009; 23: 918–921
    1. Williams LS, Rudd AG. Advances in health policy and outcomes 2009. Stroke 2010; 41: e77–80
    1. Forster A, Young J, Green J, et al. Structured re-assessment system at 6 months after a disabling stroke: a randomised controlled trial with resource use and cost study. Age Ageing 2009; 38: 576–583
    1. Davidoff F. Systems of service: reflections on the moral foundations of improvement. BMJ Qual Safety 2011; 20: i5–i10
    1. NHS Stroke Improvement Programme Operational definitions and guidance for Accelerating Stroke Improvement (ASI) collection. Leicester, UK: NHS Stroke Improvement Programme, 2011
    1. Howie JG, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ, Freeman GK. Developing a ‘consultation quality index’ (CQI) for use in general practice. Fam Pract 2000; 17: 455–461
    1. Murray J, Young J, Forster A, Herbert G, Ashworth R. Feasibility study of a primary care-based model for stroke aftercare. Br J Gen Pract 2006; 56: 775–780
    1. McKevitt C, Fudge N, Redfern J, et al. Self-reported long-term needs after stroke. Stroke 2011; 42: 1398–1403
    1. Charles C, Garni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 651–661
    1. Suchman AL, Markakis K, Beckman HB, Frankel R. A model of empathic communication in the medical interview. JAMA 1997; 277: 678–682
    1. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med 1999; 17: 285–294
    1. Guadagnoli E, Ward P. Patient participation in decision-making. Soc Sci Med 1998; 47: 329–339
    1. Cull A, Stewart M, Altman DG. Assessment of and intervention for psychosocial problems in routine oncology practice. Br J Cancer 1995; 72: 229–235
    1. Asadi-Lari M, Packham C, Gray D. Need for redefining needs. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 34.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe