Abstract
Background Evidence for Mobile Stroke Units (MSUs) demonstrates that onset to treatment times for intravenous thrombolysis can be reduced and access to mechanical thrombectomy might be improved. Despite growing use of MSUs internationally, to date there have been no studies in NHS England and NHS Wales exploring the acceptability of MSUs to clinicians, patient and public representatives and other key stakeholders, which are important when considering potential feasibility and implementation.
Methods This study used a mixed methods design with a cross-sectional survey and qualitative workshops and interviews between October 2023 to May 2024. Survey data were collected from clinicians involved in emergency stroke care. Qualitative data involved clinical and non-clinical professionals involved in stroke care alongside patient and public representatives with experience of stroke. Survey data were descriptively analysed while content analysis was used on open-ended questions. Qualitative data were thematically analysed, prior to triangulation using a convergent coding matrix.
Results The study results, drawn from 25 respondents to the survey and 21 participants in qualitative workshops, found that almost all participants had positive affective attitudes to the concept of MSUs. However, several key areas of concern were identified that need to be addressed prior to implementing MSUs. These concerns included how MSUs would be staffed; whether and how telemedicine could contribute; the types of economic impacts; extent to which triage systems could accurately identify stroke patients for MSUs to attend; where the base location and geographic coverage of MSUs should be, the impact of MSUs on equitable access to stroke care, and how to improve public awareness of MSUs.
Conclusion Whilst MSUs are mostly acceptable to key stakeholders, numerous areas of concern need to be addressed prior to MSU implementation. We recommend further research to address these issues prior to implementation in the NHS.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding Statement
Yes
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:
Ethical approval was provided via Northumbria University ethics online system (reference: 4117). The study was deemed by the Health Research Authority (HRA) to not require HRA approval. All participants gave written consent prior to any data collection.
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
Data cannot be shared publicly because participants did not give consent for data sharing. Data are available from Northumbria University, contact via corresponding author, for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.
