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 li...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/3/e080532.full |
| _version_ | 1826804800543522816 |
|---|---|
| author | Monique F Kilkenny Joosup Kim Dominique A Cadilhac Deborah Hersh Erin Godecke David A Copland Kathryn Mainstone Penelope Mainstone Sarah J Wallace Miranda L Rose Sam Harvey Marissa Stone Sally Zingelman Muideen T Olaiya Caterina Breitenstein Kirstine Shrubsole Robyn O’Halloran Annie J Hill Carolyn A Unsworth Emily Brogan Kylie J Short Clare L Burns Caroline Baker |
| author_facet | Monique F Kilkenny Joosup Kim Dominique A Cadilhac Deborah Hersh Erin Godecke David A Copland Kathryn Mainstone Penelope Mainstone Sarah J Wallace Miranda L Rose Sam Harvey Marissa Stone Sally Zingelman Muideen T Olaiya Caterina Breitenstein Kirstine Shrubsole Robyn O’Halloran Annie J Hill Carolyn A Unsworth Emily Brogan Kylie J Short Clare L Burns Caroline Baker |
| author_sort | Monique F Kilkenny |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T15:17:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d6fb30a0eb2e4102ad5dbe78713b60d5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-03-17T02:00:19Z |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-d6fb30a0eb2e4102ad5dbe78713b60d52025-02-14T07:55:09ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552024-03-0114310.1136/bmjopen-2023-080532Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods studyMonique F Kilkenny0Joosup Kim1Dominique A Cadilhac2Deborah Hersh3Erin Godecke4David A Copland5Kathryn Mainstone6Penelope Mainstone7Sarah J Wallace8Miranda L Rose9Sam Harvey10Marissa Stone11Sally Zingelman12Muideen T Olaiya13Caterina Breitenstein14Kirstine Shrubsole15Robyn O’Halloran16Annie J Hill17Carolyn A Unsworth18Emily Brogan19Kylie J Short20Clare L Burns21Caroline Baker22Stroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, AustraliaStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Parkville, Victoria, AustraliaDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, AustraliaCurtin School of Allied Health and EnAble Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, AustraliaSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, AustraliaQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, AustraliaQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, AustraliaSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaCentre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, AustraliaDepartment of Neurology with Institute of Translational Neurology, University of Muenster, Muenster, GermanyQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaCentre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaCentre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, AustraliaEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, AustraliaSurgical, Treatment and Rehabilitation Service Education and Research Alliance, The University of Queensland and Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Herston, Queensland, AustraliaRoyal Brisbane and Women`s Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Herston, Queensland, AustraliaCentre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaIntroduction 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.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/3/e080532.full |
| spellingShingle | Monique F Kilkenny Joosup Kim Dominique A Cadilhac Deborah Hersh Erin Godecke David A Copland Kathryn Mainstone Penelope Mainstone Sarah J Wallace Miranda L Rose Sam Harvey Marissa Stone Sally Zingelman Muideen T Olaiya Caterina Breitenstein Kirstine Shrubsole Robyn O’Halloran Annie J Hill Carolyn A Unsworth Emily Brogan Kylie J Short Clare L Burns Caroline Baker Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods study BMJ Open |
| title | Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods study |
| title_full | Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods study |
| title_fullStr | Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods study |
| title_short | Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods study |
| title_sort | comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke protocol for a multicentre mixed methods study |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/3/e080532.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT moniquefkilkenny comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT joosupkim comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT dominiqueacadilhac comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT deborahhersh comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT eringodecke comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT davidacopland comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT kathrynmainstone comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT penelopemainstone comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT sarahjwallace comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT mirandalrose comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT samharvey comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT marissastone comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT sallyzingelman comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT muideentolaiya comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT caterinabreitenstein comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT kirstineshrubsole comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT robynohalloran comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT anniejhill comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT carolynaunsworth comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT emilybrogan comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT kyliejshort comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT clarelburns comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy AT carolinebaker comprehensivequalityassessmentforaphasiarehabilitationafterstrokeprotocolforamulticentremixedmethodsstudy |