The Excess Costs of Hospitalization for Acute Stroke in People With Communication Impairment: A Stroke123 Data Linkage Substudy

Establishing Quality Indicators and Implementation Priorities for Post-Stroke Aphasia Services Through End-User Involvement

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no agreed quality standards for post-stroke aphasia services. Therefore, it is unknown if care reflects best practices or meets the expectations of people living with aphasia. We aimed to (1) shortlist, (2) operationalise and (3) prioritise best practice recommendations for post-stroke aphasia care.

METHODS

Three phases of research were conducted. In Phase 1, recommendations with strong evidence and/or known to be important to people with lived experience of aphasia were identified. People with lived experience and health professionals rated the importance of each recommendation through a two-round e-Delphi exercise. Recommendations were then ranked for importance and feasibility and analysed using a graph theory-based voting system. In Phase 2, shortlisted recommendations from Phase 1 were converted into quality indicators for appraisal and voting in consensus meetings. In Phase 3, priorities for implementation were established by people with lived experience and health professionals following discussion and anonymous voting.

FINDINGS

In Phase 1, 23 best practice recommendations were identified and rated by people with lived experience (n = 26) and health professionals (n = 81). Ten recommendations were shortlisted. In Phase 2, people with lived experience (n = 4) and health professionals (n = 17) reached a consensus on 11 quality indicators, relating to assessment (n = 2), information provision (n = 3), communication partner training (n = 3), goal setting (n = 1), person and family-centred care (n = 1) and provision of treatment (n = 1). In Phase 3, people with lived experience (n = 5) and health professionals (n = 7) identified three implementation priorities: assessment of aphasia, provision of aphasia-friendly information and provision of therapy.

INTERPRETATION

Our 11 quality indicators and 3 implementation priorities are the first step to enabling systematic, efficient and person-centred measurement and quality improvement in post-stroke aphasia services. Quality indicators will be embedded in routine data collection systems, and strategies will be developed to address implementation priorities.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Protocol development was informed by our previous research, which explored the perspectives of 23 people living with aphasia about best practice aphasia services. Individuals with lived experience of aphasia participated as expert panel members in our three consensus meetings. We received support from consumer advisory networks associated with the Centre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation and Recovery and the Queensland Aphasia Research Centre.

Impact of quality of care on outcomes in survivors of stroke with aphasia: A linked registry and hospital data observational study

BACKGROUND

The impact of hospital care quality on patient outcomes in post-stroke aphasia remains unclear. We investigated the impact of nationally-endorsed acute stroke treatments on outcomes post-stroke, by aphasia status.

METHODS

Patient-level data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (2009-2013) linked to national deaths, hospital emergency presentations and admissions data were used. Aphasia was identified for the index stroke event (ICD-10 diagnosis code R47.0). Impact of receiving an optimal stroke care bundle (stroke unit care, antihypertensive medication at discharge and discharge care plan) and an acute ischemic stroke (AIS) care bundle (stroke unit care, intravenous thrombolysis and aspirin within 48 h of admission) on outcomes were analysed using multivariable regression models with propensity score adjustment.

RESULTS

The study included 12,690 patients with a median age of 76, 54 % male, and 26 % with aphasia. Non-receipt of the optimal stroke care bundle was associated with worse survival, compared to optimal care, in people with aphasia (HR: 3.37; 95 % CI 2.10, 5.40; p < 0.05) and without aphasia (HR: 2.10; 95 % CI 1.19, 3.69; p < 0.05). Notably, the dose-response effect on survival was more pronounced in individuals with aphasia. In those who received the AIS care bundle, readmission within 12 months was greater in those without aphasia (vs aphasia, p-value interaction = 0.001), whereas survival was similar (p-value interaction = 0.731).

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors of stroke with aphasia who did not receive the optimal stroke care bundle, had worse survival at 12 months post-stroke. Ensuring eligible patients receive the optimal stroke care bundle is crucial for improving their 12-month survival.

Is communication key in stroke rehabilitation and recovery? National linked stroke data study

BACKGROUND

Information on the characteristics or long-term outcomes of people with communication support needs post-stroke is limited. We investigated associations between communication gains in rehabilitation and long-term outcomes (quality-of-life [EuroQOL-ED-3 L], mortality) by post-stroke communication support need status.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using person-level linked data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry and the Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre (2014-2017). Communication support needs were assessed using the Functional Independence Measure™ comprehension and expression items recorded on admission indicated by scores one (total assistance) to five (standby prompting). Multivariable multilevel and Cox regression models were used to determine associations with long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 8,394 patients who received in-patient rehabilitation after stroke (42% female, median age 75.6 years), two-thirds had post-stroke communication support needs. Having aphasia (odds ratio [OR] 4.34, 95% CI 3.67-5.14), being aged ≥65 years (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.08-1.36), greater stroke severity (unable to walk on admission; OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.32-1.68) and previous stroke (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11-1.41) were associated with increased likelihoods of having communication support needs. One-point improvement in FIM™ expression was associated with reduced likelihood of self-reporting problems related to mobility (OR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.80-0.90), self-care (OR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.74-0.86) or usual activities (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.94) at 90-180 days. Patients with communication support needs had greater mortality rates within one-year post-stroke (adjusted hazard ratio 1.99, 95% CI: 1.65-2.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-thirds of patients with stroke require communication support to participate in healthcare activities. Establishing communication-accessible stroke care environments is a priority.

Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

People with aphasia following stroke experience disproportionally poor outcomes, yet there is no comprehensive approach to measuring the quality of aphasia services. The Meaningful Evaluation of Aphasia SeRvicES (MEASuRES) minimum dataset was developed in partnership with people with lived experience of aphasia, clinicians and researchers to address this gap. It comprises sociodemographic characteristics, quality indicators, treatment descriptors and outcome measurement instruments. We present a protocol to pilot the MEASuRES minimum dataset in clinical practice, describe the factors that hinder or support implementation and determine meaningful thresholds of clinical change for core outcome measurement instruments.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This research aims to deliver a comprehensive quality assessment toolkit for poststroke aphasia services in four studies. A multicentre pilot study (study 1) will test the administration of the MEASuRES minimum dataset within five Australian health services. An embedded mixed-methods process evaluation (study 2) will evaluate the performance of the minimum dataset and explore its clinical applicability. A consensus study (study 3) will establish consumer-informed thresholds of meaningful change on core aphasia outcome constructs, which will then be used to establish minimal important change values for corresponding core outcome measurement instruments (study 4).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Studies 1 and 2 have been registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12623001313628). Ethics approval has been obtained from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (HREC/2023/MNHB/95293) and The University of Queensland (2022/HE001946 and 2023/HE001175). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and engagement with relevant stakeholders including healthcare providers, policy-makers, stroke and rehabilitation audit and clinical quality registry custodians, consumer support organisations, and individuals with aphasia and their families.

Meta-analysis and systematic review of the relationship between sex and the risk or incidence of poststroke aphasia and its types

OBJECTIVE

To analyse and discuss the association of gender differences with the risk and incidence of poststroke aphasia (PSA) and its types, and to provide evidence-based guidance for the prevention and treatment of poststroke aphasia in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from January 1, 2002, to December 1, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Including the total number of strokes, aphasia, the number of different sexes or the number of PSA corresponding to different sex.

DATA EXTRACTION

Studies with missing data, aphasia caused by nonstroke and noncompliance with the requirements of literature types were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

36 papers were included, from 19 countries. The analysis of 168,259 patients with stroke and 31,058 patients with PSA showed that the risk of PSA was 1.23 times higher in female than in male (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.19-1.29, P < 0.001), with a prevalence of PSA of 31% in men and 36% in women, and an overall prevalence of 34% (P < 0.001). Analysis of the risk of the different types of aphasia in 1,048 patients with PSA showed a high risk in females for global, broca and Wenicke aphasia, and a high risk in males for anomic, conductive and transcortical aphasia, which was not statistically significant by meta-analysis. The incidence of global aphasia (males vs. females, 29% vs. 32%) and broca aphasia (17% vs 19%) were higher in females, and anomic aphasia (19% vs 14%) was higher in males, which was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There are gender differences in the incidence and types of PSA. The risk of PSA in female is higher than that in male.

Economic evaluation of the Very Early Rehabilitation in SpEech (VERSE) intervention

INTRODUCTION

There is limited evidence on the costs and outcomes of patients with aphasia after stroke. The aim of this study was to estimate costs in patients with aphasia after stroke according to the aphasia therapies provided.

METHODS

A three-arm, prospective, randomized, parallel group, open-label, blinded endpoint assessment trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand. Usual ward-based care (Usual Care) was compared to additional usual ward-based therapy (Usual Care Plus) and a prescribed and structured aphasia therapy program in addition to Usual Care (the VERSE intervention). Information about healthcare utilization and productivity were collected to estimate costs in Australian dollars for 2017-18. Multivariable regression models with bootstrapping were used to estimate differences in costs and outcomes (clinically meaningful change in aphasia severity measured by the WAB-R-AQ).

RESULTS

Overall, 202/246 (82%) participants completed follow-up at 26 weeks. Median costs per person were $23,322 (Q1 5,367, Q3 52,669, n = 63) for Usual Care, $26,923 (Q1 7,303, Q3 76,174, n = 70) for Usual Care Plus and $31,143 (Q1 7,001. Q3 62,390, n = 69) for VERSE. No differences in costs and outcomes were detected between groups. Usual Care Plus was inferior (i.e. more costly and less effective) in 64% of iterations, and in 18% was less costly and less effective compared to Usual Care. VERSE was inferior in 65% of samples and less costly and less effective in 12% compared to Usual Care.

CONCLUSION

There was limited evidence that additional intensively delivered aphasia therapy within the context of usual acute care provided was worthwhile in terms of costs for the outcomes gained.

Elizabeth Usher memorial lecture: Beyond our practice borders-using a biopsychosocial framework to improve long-term outcomes for people living with aphasia

Purpose: Over 140 000 Australians live with aphasia after stroke, with this number of people living with aphasia increasing significantly when aphasia arising from traumatic brain injury, neoplasm, and infectious and progressive neurological diseases is also included. The resulting communication disability frequently compromises every aspect of daily life, significantly impacting everyday activity, employment, social participation, mental health, identity, and family functioning. Rehabilitation services rarely meet the needs of this group who have, for example, poorer healthcare outcomes than stroke peers without aphasia, nor address long-term recovery and support needs.Method: In this discussion paper, I argue that given the broad impacts of aphasia, a biopsychosocial approach to aphasia rehabilitation is required. Rehabilitation must include: interventions to improve the communication environment; programs that directly target identity, wellbeing, and mental health; and therapies focusing on functional activity, communication participation, and long-term self-management.Result: The evidence for these approaches is mounting and includes strongly stated consumer needs. I discuss the need for multidisciplinary involvement and argue that for speech-language pathologists to achieve such comprehensive service provision, an expanded scope of practice is required.Conclusion: There is a need to rethink standard therapy approaches, timeframes, and funding mechanisms. It is time to reflect on our practice borders to ask what must change and define how change can be achieved.