TY - JOUR
T1 - Sustaining a New Model of Acute Stroke Care
T2 - A Mixed-Method Process Evaluation of the Melbourne Mobile Stroke Unit
AU - Bagot, Kathleen L.
AU - Purvis, Tara
AU - Hancock, Shaun
AU - Zhao, Henry
AU - Coote, Skye
AU - Easton, Damien
AU - Campbell, Bruce C.V.
AU - Davis, Stephen M.
AU - Donnan, Geoff A.
AU - Foster, Shane
AU - Langenberg, Francesca
AU - Smith, Karen
AU - Stephenson, Michael
AU - Bernard, Stephen
AU - McGowan, Sharon
AU - Yan, Bernard
AU - Mitchell, Peter
AU - Middleton, Sandy
AU - Cadilhac, Dominique A.
N1 - Funding Information:
The Melbourne Mobile Stroke Unit and associated projects received funding from the Australian Commonwealth Government, Victorian State Government, Royal Melbourne Hospital Neurosciences Foundation, Stroke Foundation, an NHMRC Program Grant (#1113352), the Florey Institute of Neurosciences and Mental Health, the University of Melbourne, Boehringer Ingelheim, and a private donation. Funding for this evaluation was provided by Melbourne Health from an NHMRC Program Grant (#1113352).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s).
PY - 2023/1
Y1 - 2023/1
N2 - Background: Internationally, Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) ambulances have changed pre-hospital acute stroke care delivery. MSU clinical and cost-effectiveness studies are emerging, but little is known about important factors for achieving sustainability of this innovative model of care. Methods: Mixed-methods study from the Melbourne MSU (operational since November 2017) process evaluation. Participant purposive sampling included clinical, operational and executive/management representatives from Ambulance Victoria (AV) (emergency medical service provider), the MSU clinical team, and receiving hospitals. Sustainability was defined as ongoing MSU operations, including MSU workforce and future model considerations. Theoretically-based on-line survey with Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Self Determination Theory (SDT, Intrinsic Motivation), and open-text questions targeting barriers and benefits was administered (June-September 2019). Individual/group interviews were conducted, eliciting improvement suggestions and requirements for ongoing use. Descriptive and regression analyses (quantitative data) and directed content and thematic analysis (open text and interview data) were conducted. Results: There were 135 surveys completed. Identifying that the MSU was beneficial to daily work (β = 0.61), not experiencing pressure/tension about working on the MSU (β = 0.17) and thinking they did well working within the team model (β = 0.17) were significantly associated with wanting to continue working within the MSU model [R2 = 0.76; F(15, 60) = 12.76, P < .001]. Experiences varied between those on the MSU team and those working with the MSU. Advantages were identified for patients (better, faster care) and clinicians (interdisciplinary learning). Disadvantages included challenges integrating into established systems, and establishing working relationships. Themes identified from 35 interviews were MSU team composition, MSU vehicle design and layout, personnel recruitment and rostering, communication improvements between organisations, telemedicine options, MSU operations and dispatch specificity. Conclusion: Important factors affecting the sustainability of the MSU model of stroke care emerged. A cohesive team approach, with identifiable benefits and good communication between participating organisations is important for clinical and operational sustainability.
AB - Background: Internationally, Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) ambulances have changed pre-hospital acute stroke care delivery. MSU clinical and cost-effectiveness studies are emerging, but little is known about important factors for achieving sustainability of this innovative model of care. Methods: Mixed-methods study from the Melbourne MSU (operational since November 2017) process evaluation. Participant purposive sampling included clinical, operational and executive/management representatives from Ambulance Victoria (AV) (emergency medical service provider), the MSU clinical team, and receiving hospitals. Sustainability was defined as ongoing MSU operations, including MSU workforce and future model considerations. Theoretically-based on-line survey with Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Self Determination Theory (SDT, Intrinsic Motivation), and open-text questions targeting barriers and benefits was administered (June-September 2019). Individual/group interviews were conducted, eliciting improvement suggestions and requirements for ongoing use. Descriptive and regression analyses (quantitative data) and directed content and thematic analysis (open text and interview data) were conducted. Results: There were 135 surveys completed. Identifying that the MSU was beneficial to daily work (β = 0.61), not experiencing pressure/tension about working on the MSU (β = 0.17) and thinking they did well working within the team model (β = 0.17) were significantly associated with wanting to continue working within the MSU model [R2 = 0.76; F(15, 60) = 12.76, P < .001]. Experiences varied between those on the MSU team and those working with the MSU. Advantages were identified for patients (better, faster care) and clinicians (interdisciplinary learning). Disadvantages included challenges integrating into established systems, and establishing working relationships. Themes identified from 35 interviews were MSU team composition, MSU vehicle design and layout, personnel recruitment and rostering, communication improvements between organisations, telemedicine options, MSU operations and dispatch specificity. Conclusion: Important factors affecting the sustainability of the MSU model of stroke care emerged. A cohesive team approach, with identifiable benefits and good communication between participating organisations is important for clinical and operational sustainability.
KW - Ambulances
KW - Evaluation Studies
KW - Program Sustainability
KW - Stroke
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85159881197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7716
DO - 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7716
M3 - Article
C2 - 37579413
AN - SCOPUS:85159881197
SN - 2322-5939
VL - 12
JO - International Journal of Health Policy and Management
JF - International Journal of Health Policy and Management
IS - 1
M1 - 7716
ER -