How does the review process support adults post-stroke?
Research type
Research Study
Full title
How does the review process support adults with long term need post-stroke?
IRAS ID
172658
Contact name
Vanessa Abrahamson
Contact email
Research summary
Reducing stroke related mortality and morbidity is a Government priority: it is the third most common cause of death with the total cost is estimated at £7 billion annually. There is evidence of unmet self-reported need in nearly 50% of stroke survivors between 1-5 years post-stroke and high rates of social isolation, depression and anxiety. The primary goal of rehabilitation is community integration, or participation in a range of individual, social and community activities: this remains unobtainable for many stroke survivors.
The National Stroke Strategy (2007) recommended reviewing those who have had a stroke at six weeks, six months and yearly thereafter to address on-going need and improve outcomes. However, there is much variation in implementation of the review process and limited evaluation. As of August 2014, across South East Coast region there are no services in twelve of the twenty Clinical Commissioning Groups.
The focus in the literature and in clinical practice appears to have shifted from endorsing the concept of regular contact with patients post-stroke to focusing on a six month review (6MR) carried out using standardised tools. This appears to assume that a 6MR equates to the long-term support envisaged in policy.
This study will use a multiple case study approach to explore how the review process supports adults with long-term needs post-stroke. The study intends to clarify the purpose and outcomes of the review process from the perspective of patient, carer, provider and commissioner and to identify the mechanisms by which these outcomes are achieved. Recommendations will focus on developing the review process to better meet the needs of patients and their carers.
REC name
London - Surrey Borders Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/LO/0808
Date of REC Opinion
9 Jun 2015
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion