A cluster randomized trial to assess the impact of clinical pathways for patients with stroke : rationale and design of the Clinical Pathways for Effective and Appropriate Care Study [ NCT 00673491 ]

Background: Patients with stroke should have access to a continuum of care from organized stroke units in the acute phase, to appropriate rehabilitation and secondary prevention measures. Moreover to improve the outcomes for acute stroke patients from an organizational perspective, the use of multidisciplinary teams and the delivery of continuous stroke education both to the professionals and to the public, and the implementation of evidence-based stroke care are recommended. Clinical pathways are complex interventions that can be used for this purpose. However in stroke care the use of clinical pathways remains questionable because little prospective controlled data has demonstrated their effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to determine whether clinical pathways could improve the quality of the care provided to the patients affected by stroke in hospital and through the continuum of the care. Methods: Two-arm, cluster-randomized trial with hospitals and rehabilitation long-term care facilities as randomization units. 14 units will be randomized either to arm 1 (clinical pathway) or to arm 2 (no intervention, usual care). The sample will include 238 in each group, this gives a power of 80%, at 5% significance level. The primary outcome measure is 30-days mortality. The impact of the clinical pathways along the continuum of care will also be analyzed by comparing the length of hospital stay, the hospital re-admissions rates, the institutionalization rates after hospital discharge, the patients' dependency levels, and complication rates. The quality of the care provided to the patients will be assessed by monitoring the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during hospital stay and rehabilitation, and by the use of key quality indicators at discharge. The implementation of organized care will be also evaluated. Conclusion: The management of patients affected by stroke involves the expertise of several professionals, which can result in poor coordination or inefficiencies in patient treatment, and clinical pathways can significantly improve the outcomes of these patients. It is proposed that this study will test a new hypothesis and provide evidence of how clinical pathways can work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID [NCT00673491] Published: 3 November 2008 BMC Health Services Research 2008, 8:223 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-223 Received: 25 September 2008 Accepted: 3 November 2008 This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/8/223 © 2008 Panella et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

[1]  J. Sterne,et al.  Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[2]  P. Sandercock,et al.  Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  M K Campbell,et al.  Cluster trials in implementation research: estimation of intracluster correlation coefficients and sample size. , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  P. Yudkin,et al.  Putting theory into practice: a cluster randomized trial with a small number of clusters. , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  M. Loeb Application of the development stages of a cluster randomized trial to a framework for evaluating complex health interventions , 2002, BMC health services research.

[6]  M. Panella,et al.  Reducing clinical variations with clinical pathways: do pathways work? , 2003, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[7]  A. Donner,et al.  Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. , 2004, American journal of public health.

[8]  Alan Shiell,et al.  Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  L. Kalra,et al.  A randomised controlled comparison of alternative strategies in stroke care. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[10]  Peter Moyer,et al.  Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care: Recommendations From the American Stroke Association’s Task Force on the Development of Stroke Systems , 2005, Circulation.

[11]  B. Norrving,et al.  Helsingborg Declaration 2006 on European Stroke Strategies , 2006, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[12]  Olivier Rouaud,et al.  Epidemiology of stroke in Europe: Geographic and environmental differences , 2007, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[13]  A Donner,et al.  Developments in cluster randomized trials and Statistics in Medicine , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  M. Panella,et al.  A cluster randomized controlled trial of a clinical pathway for hospital treatment of heart failure: study design and population , 2007, BMC Health Services Research.

[15]  Jan van Gijn,et al.  Acute Ischemic Stroke , 2007 .

[16]  J. Kwan Care pathways for acute stroke care and stroke rehabilitation: From theory to evidence , 2007, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[17]  M. Fisher Stroke and TIA: epidemiology, risk factors, and the need for early intervention. , 2008, The American journal of managed care.

[18]  V. Hachinski,et al.  Escalating Levels of Access to In-Hospital Care and Stroke Mortality , 2008, Stroke.