- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Telephone assessment"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Comparing treatment fidelity between study arms of a randomized controlled clinical trial for stroke family caregivers(Sage, 2016-05) McLennon, Susan M.; Hancock, Rebecca D.; Redelman, Kathleen; Scarton, Lisa L.; Riley, Elizabeth; Sweeney, Bobbie; Habermann, Barbara; Jessup, Nenette M.; Bakas, Tamilyn; School of NursingOBJECTIVE: To compare treatment fidelity among treatment arms in the Telephone Assessment and Skill-Building Kit study for stroke caregivers (TASK II) with respect to: 1) protocol adherence; 2) intervention dosage and 3) nurse intervener perspectives. DESIGN: A randomized controlled clinical trial design. SETTING: Urban, community, midwestern United States. SUBJECTS: A total of 254 stroke caregivers (mean ±SD age, 54.4 ±11.8 years), 55 (22.0%) males and 199 (78.4%) females) randomized to the TASK II intervention (n=123) or an Information, Support, and Referral comparison group (n=131). INTERVENTIONS: TASK II participants received the TASK II Resource Guide; Information, Support, and Referral participants received a standard caregiver brochure. At approximately 8 weeks after discharge, both groups received 8 weekly calls from a nurse, with a booster call 4 weeks later. MEASURES: Protocol adherence was evaluated with the TASK II Checklist for Monitoring Adherence. Intervention dosage was measured by the number of minutes caregivers spent reading materials and talking with the nurse. Nurse intervener perspectives were obtained through focus groups. RESULTS: Protocol adherence was 80% for the TASK II and 92% for the Information, Support, and Referral. As expected, intervention dosage differed between TASK II and Information, Support, and Referral with respect to caregiver time spent reading materials (t=-6.49; P<.001) and talking with the nurse (t=-7.38; P<.001). Focus groups with nurses yielded further evidence for treatment fidelity and recommendations for future trials. CONCLUSIONS: These findings substantiate treatment fidelity in both study arms of the TASK II stroke caregiver intervention trial (NIH R01NR010388; ClinicalTrials.govNCT01275495).Item Deriving Place of Residence, Modified Rankin Scale, and EuroQol-5D Scores from the Medical Record for Stroke Survivors(Karger, 2021) Sucharew, Heidi; Kleindorfer, Dawn; Khoury, Jane C.; Alwell, Kathleen; Haverbusch, Mary; Stanton, Robert; Demel, Stacie; De Los Rios La Rosa, Felipe; Ferioli, Simona; Jasne, Adam; Mistry, Eva; Moomaw, Charles J.; Mackey, Jason; Slavin, Sabreena; Star, Michael; Walsh, Kyle; Woo, Daniel; Kissela, Brett M.; Neurology, School of MedicineIntroduction: We sought to determine the feasibility and validity of estimating post-stroke outcomes using information available in the electronic medical record (EMR) through comparison with outcomes obtained from telephone interviews. Methods: The Greater Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Stroke Study is a retrospective population-based epidemiology study that ascertains hospitalized strokes in the study region. As a sub-study, we identified all ischemic stroke patients who presented to a system of 4 hospitals during the study period 1/1/2015–12/31/2015 and were discharged alive. Enrolled subjects (or proxies for cognitively-disabled patients) were contacted by telephone at 3 and 6 months post-stroke to determine current place of residence and two functional outcomes—the modified Rankin Score (mRS) and the EuroQol (EQ-5D). Concurrently, the lead study coordinator, blinded to the telephone assessment outcomes, reviewed all available EMRs to estimate outcome status. Agreement between outcomes estimated from the EMR with “gold-standard” data obtained from telephone interviews was analyzed using the kappa statistic or interclass correlation (ICC), as appropriate. For each outcome, EMR-determined results were evaluated for added value beyond the information readily available from the stroke hospital stay. Results: Of 381 ischemic strokes identified, 294 (median [IQR] age 70 [60–79] years, 4% black, 52% female) were interviewed post-stroke. Agreement between EMR and telephone for 3-month residence was very good (kappa=0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.94), good for mRS (weighted kappa=0.75, 95% CI 0.70–0.80), and good for EQ-5D (ICC=0.74, 95% CI 0.68–0.79). Similar results were observed at 6 months post stroke. At both 3 and 6 months post stroke, EMR-determined outcomes added value in predicting the gold standard telephone results beyond the information available from the stroke hospitalization; the added fraction of new information ranged from 0.25 to 0.59. Conclusions: Determining place of residence, mRS, and EQ-5D outcomes derived from information recorded in the EMR post-stroke, without patient contact, is feasible and has good agreement with data obtained from direct contact. However, we note that the level of agreement for mRS and EQ-5D was higher for proxy interviews and that the EMR often reflects health care providers’ judgments that tend to overestimate disability and underestimate quality of life.