Abstract
Background Clinical decisions made early after stroke can make the difference between survival with disability or death. We aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a new Shared decision making (SDM) process for severe stroke into a regional 36 bedded stroke unit.
Methods We developed the process through four coproduction workshops, attempted its implementation then its impact on death at 6 months, discharge destination and tube feeding. We also explored patients, families and staff views about SDM.
Results Eleven people (staff and people with lived experience of stroke) attended the first co-production workshop, eight the second, seven the third and six the fourth. The new SDM process incorporated Tailored Talks (a digital platform with information about stroke and its prognosis) and an implementation plan (including staff training). We implemented this process on 1st August 2022.
Only 8/1020 patients received Tailored Talks (4 before and 4 after implementation). For the entire group there was no change tube feeding, discharge destination or death. The proportion of people with severe strokes dead at six months was higher before implementation. Twenty-one patients or family members provided views about SDM quality, but the sample size was too small to draw conclusions. Staff interviews suggested that insufficient time, lack of a ‘human touch’ and inadequate leadership explained the lack of implementation.
Conclusion Our co-produced SDM was not effectively implemented into a stroke unit and there was no change in the use of tube feeding or death in 1020 patients.
Key points Shared decision making after severe stroke is complex.
A co-produced new process for shared decision making after severe stroke was not effectively implemented into clinical practice.
There was no change in tube feeding, death or institutionalisation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Edinburgh and Lothian Health Foundation Reference 1339
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval was given by Scotland A research ethics committee (21/SS/0044)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
