Abstract
PURPOSE We document current clinical practice and needs in screening for visual perception problems after stroke to inform development of new screening tools.
MATERIALS AND METHODS We interviewed 12 occupational therapists and 13 orthoptists. Interviews were thematically analysed using the Value Proposition Canvas, a model which establishes challenges and facilitators in what people want to achieve.
RESULTS Participants’ understanding of visual perception varied and often included sensory and cognitive deficits. Occupational therapists commonly screened for visual field deficits and hemispatial neglect, while other aspects of visual cognition were rarely assessed. A positive screening result triggered an orthoptic referral. Screening generally occurred during functional assessments and/or with in-house developed tools. Challenges to practice were: lack of time, lack of training, environmental and stroke survivor factors (e.g. aphasia), insufficient continuation of care, and test characteristics (e.g. not evidence-based).
Facilitators were: quick and practical tools, experienced staff or tools with minimal training requirements, a streamlined care pathway.
CONCLUSIONS Screening employs non-standardised assessments and rarely covers higher visual perceptual deficits. We demonstrates the need for an evidence-based visual perception screen, which should ideally be 15 minutes or less, be portable, and require minimal equipment. The screen should be suitable for bedside testing and aphasia-friendly.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Stroke Association [grant number TSA PDF 2017/03, TSA LECT 2015/02].
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Twitter: @MichaelJColwell, @NeleDemeyere
Updated references, justified some methodological choices, corrected typos, reduced number of repetitive quotes to shorten paper
Data Availability
Given the small group of stroke orthoptists and stroke occupational therapists in England, sharing the interview transcripts would potentially disclose participants' identity.
