Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31384464›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2019

Staff perspectives from Australian hospitals seeking to improve implementation of thrombolysis care for acute stroke.

Christine Paul, Catherine D'Este, Annika Ryan, Amanda Jayakody, John Attia, Christopher Oldmeadow, Erin Kerr, Frans Henskens, Alice Grady, Christopher R Levi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Christine PaulSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0504-5246
Catherine D'EsteNational Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Annika RyanSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Amanda JayakodySchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
John AttiaSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Christopher OldmeadowSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Erin KerrHunter New England Health, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia.
Frans HenskensSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Alice GradySchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Christopher R LeviSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntravenous thrombolysis is one of few evidence-based treatments for acute stroke. Treatment uptake is low outside major stroke care centres. There is a need for greater understanding of barriers encountered by clinicians when seeking to increase thrombolysis rates.

aimThe aim of this study is to describe physicians' and nurses' perceptions regarding thrombolysis for acute stroke at hospitals in the earlier stages of thrombolysis implementation.

methodsA cross-sectional paper survey completed by physicians' and nurses' was distributed to 1127 staff at stroke care units, emergency departments or equivalent stroke care facilities at 19 Australian hospitals, as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial for thrombolysis implementation and systems improvement.

resultsOf 1127 potential participants, 503 (148 physicians and 355 nurses) completed surveys (45% response rate). Over 90% agreed that thrombolysis improved the odds of independent survival. However, 42% to 58% agreed that there were limitations in the evidence base. A small proportion of staff indicated deficits in technical competencies. Interactive or competency-based training was reported by less than two-thirds of the sample. Challenges such as quick bed availability were identified. Emergency department physicians were less positive towards the treatment compared with nurses (p < 0.001), stroke care unit physicians were more positive than nurses (p = 0.047) and older clinicians were more positive than younger clinicians (p = 0.007).

conclusionAustralian hospitals seeking to address barriers to stroke thrombolysis implementation may benefit from the availability of interactive and competency-based training, staff performance feedback, support to make beds available quickly and bypass arrangements to quickly deliver acute stroke patients to appropriate facilities.

Indexed as

implementationIschaemic strokethrombolysis

Identifiers

PMID31384464
PMCPMC6647204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.