Rationale and design of an interventional study of cross-sectoral, coordinated treatment of stroke patients with patient-orientated outcome measurement (StroCare)

David Leander Rimmele, Theresa Schrage, Christian Brettschneider, Alexander Engels, Christian Gerloff, Martin Härter, Michael Rosenkranz, Holger Schmidt, Levente Kriston, Götz Thomalla, David Leander Rimmele, Theresa Schrage, Christian Brettschneider, Alexander Engels, Christian Gerloff, Martin Härter, Michael Rosenkranz, Holger Schmidt, Levente Kriston, Götz Thomalla

Abstract

Introduction: Stroke has a long-term impact on functional status and quality of life in multiple health domains. A well-coordinated managed care program for stroke patients is crucial for ameliorating patients' health and cost-efficient use of resources. The aim of this study is the implementation and evaluation of an optimised cross-sectoral, coordinated and managed care program for stroke patients bridging secondary and tertiary care.

Methods: In this multi-center mixed method sequentially controlled intervention study, stroke patients with ischemic stroke (I63), transient ischemic attack and related syndromes (G45), or intracerebral haermorrhage (I64) will be invited to participate. For a 12-months period, 235 consecutive patients are expected to be enrolled and assigned standard of care treatment as an active control group. During the following 12 months, 235 consecutive patients will be enrolled and assigned to a post stroke intervention program. The StroCare intervention consists of repeated outpatient visits with specialized stroke teams, the implementation of a case manager, the use of an electronical tool for communication between acute care, rehabilitation facilities, and out-patient care, and the definition of individualized treatment targets. Patients will be followed up for 24 months. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Question Short Form (PROMIS-10) at 12 months after the index event, i.e. stroke or TIA. For the qualitative survey of the implementation process, 21 patients in the intervention group will be interviewed after implementation of the interventions. In addition, 20 health care providers and staff members will be interviewed before and after implementation. Additionally, economic outcomes will be evaluated after 6 and 12 months.

Perspective: The study will not only provide information about the tested intervention but is likely to be helpful for clinicians, suppliers of reimbursement, and researchers in implementing and evaluating complex interventions in stroke care in general. With this program, the health care system will have a reference model at its disposal for transfer to other regions and settings.

Trial registration: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04159324 ). Approval of the local ethics committee (Ethik-Kommission der Ärztekammer Hamburg, Niedersachsen, Schleswig-Holstein) has been obtained.

Keywords: Case management; Controlled trial; Implementation; Quality of life; Stroke; Stroke nurse.

Conflict of interest statement

LR, TS, CB, AE, MH, HS, and LK report no conflict of interest. CG reports personal fees from Amgen, Bayer Vital, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi Aventis, Abbott, and Prediction Biosciences outside the submitted work. GT reports receiving consulting fees from Acandis, grant support, and lecture fees from Bayer, lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, and consulting fees and lecture fees from Stryker outside the submitted work. MR reports lecture and consulting fees from Bayer Vital, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Exprected patient flow diagram for the assessment of effectiveness
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Placement allocation in usual care and in the StroCare intervention. a usual care: medical staff inquires separately by telephone for vacancies in rehabilitation clinics. b StroCare: all inquiries are forwarded to the rehabilitation clinics and back via electronical platform
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Outcome measures

References

    1. Johnson CO, et al. Global, regional, and National Burden of stroke, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. The Lancet Neurology. 2019;18(5):439–458. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1.
    1. Chen Q, Cao C, Gong L, Zhang Y. Health related quality of life in stroke patients and risk factors associated with patients for return to work. Medicine. 2019;98(16):e15130. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015130.
    1. Unrath M, Kalic M, Berger K. Who Receives Rehabilitation after Stroke?: Data from the Quality Assurance Project ‘Stroke Register Northwest Germany.’. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 2013;110(7):101–107.
    1. Hempler I, Woitha K, Thielhorn U, Farin E. Post-stroke care after medical rehabilitation in Germany: A systematic literature review of the current provision of stroke patients. BMC Health Services Research. 2018;18(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3235-2.
    1. Heuschmann PU, et al. Control of Main risk factors after Ischaemic stroke across Europe: Data from the stroke-specific module of the EUROASPIRE III survey. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2015;22(10):1354–1362. doi: 10.1177/2047487314546825.
    1. World Health Organization . “The Global Burden of Disease 2004.” Update, World Health Organization. 2004. pp. 43–50.
    1. Kolominsky-Rabas PL, et al. Lifetime cost of ischemic stroke in Germany: Results and National Projections from a population-based stroke registry - the Erlangen stroke project. Stroke. 2006;37(5):1179–1183. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000217450.21310.90.
    1. Eichner, F. A., et al. (2020). Trial design and pilot phase results of a cluster-randomised intervention trial to improve stroke care after hospital discharge – The structured ambulatory post-stroke care program (SANO). European Stroke Journal, 1–9.
    1. Rimmele DL, et al. Health-related quality of life 90 days after stroke assessed by the international consortium for health outcome measurement standard set. European Journal of Neurology. 2020;27(12):2508–2516. doi: 10.1111/ene.14479.
    1. Rimmele DL, et al. Outcome evaluation by patient reported outcome measures in stroke clinical practice (EPOS) protocol for a prospective observation and implementation study. Neurological Research and Practice. 2019;0:1–7.
    1. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Measuring Results That Matter Ability to Communicate Stroke. Data Collection Reference Guide. 2017.
    1. Ahmadi M, et al. A support Programme for secondary prevention in patients with transient Ischaemic attack and minor stroke (INSPiRE-TMS): An open-label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Neurology. 2020;19(1):49–60. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30369-2.
    1. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903.
    1. Cella D, et al. Initial adult health item banks and first wave testing of the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) network. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010;63(11):1179–1194. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.
    1. Löwe B, et al. A 4-Item Measure of Depression and Anxiety : Validation and Standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 ( PHQ-4 ) in the General Population. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2010;122(1–2):86–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.019.
    1. Bruno A, et al. Simplified modified Rankin scale questionnaire. Stroke. 2011;42(8):2276–2279. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.613273.
    1. Proctor E, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011;38(2):65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
    1. Scholl, I., Zill, J. M., Härter, M., & Dirmaier, J. (2014). An integrative model of patient-centeredness-a systematic review and concept analysis. PLoS One, 9(9), e107828.
    1. Mayring P, Gahleitner SB. “Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse.” Handbuch qualitative Methoden in der Sozialen Arbeit. 2019. pp. 295–304.
    1. Mihaylova B, Briggs A, O’Hagan A, Thompson SG. Review of statistical methods for ANALYSING healthcare resources and costs. Health Economics. 2011;20:897–916. doi: 10.1002/hec.1653.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner