Many adult inpatients experience urinary continence issues; however, we lack evidence on effective interventions for inpatient continence care. We conducted a before and after implementation study. We implemented our guideline-based intervention using strategies targeting identified barriers and evaluated the impact on urinary continence care provided by inpatient clinicians. Fifteen wards (acute = 3, rehabilitation = 7, acute and rehabilitation = 5) at 12 hospitals (metropolitan = 4, regional = 8) participated. We screened 2298 consecutive adult medical records for evidence of urinary continence symptoms over three 3-month periods: before implementation (T₀: n = 849), after the 6-month implementation period (T₁: n = 740), and after a 6-month maintenance period (T₂: n = 709). The records of symptomatic inpatients were audited for continence assessment, diagnosis, and management plans. All wards contributed data at T₀, and 11/15 wards contributed at T₁ and T₂ (dropouts due to COVID-19). Approximately 26% of stroke, 33% acute medical, and 50% of rehabilitation inpatients were symptomatic. The proportions of symptomatic patients (T₀: n = 283, T₁: n = 241, T₂: n = 256) receiving recommended care were: assessment T₀ = 38%, T₁ = 63%, T₂ = 68%; diagnosis T₀ = 30%, T₁ = 70%, T₂ = 71%; management plan T₀ = 7%, T₁ = 24%, T₂ = 24%. Overall, there were 4-fold increased odds for receiving assessments and management plans and 6-fold greater odds for diagnosis. These improvements were sustained at T₂. This intervention has improved inpatient continence care.

Background: Urinary incontinence (UI) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are commonly experienced by adult patients in hospitals (inpatients). Although peak bodies recommend that health services have systems for optimal UI and LUTS care, they are often not delivered. For example, results from the 2017 Australian National Stroke Audit Acute Services indicated that of the one-third of acute stroke inpatients with UI, only 18% received a management plan. In the 2018 Australian National Stroke Audit Rehabilitation Services, half of the 41% of patients with UI received a management plan. There is little reporting of effective inpatient interventions to systematically deliver optimal UI/LUTS care. Objective: This study aims to determine whether our UI/LUTS practice-change package is feasible and effective for delivering optimal UI/LUTS care in an inpatient setting. The package includes our intervention that has been synthesized from the best-available evidence on UI/LUTS care and a theoretically informed implementation strategy targeting identified barriers and enablers. The package is targeted at clinicians working in the participating wards. Methods: This is a pragmatic, real-world, before- and after-implementation study conducted at 12 hospitals (15 wards: 7/15, 47% metropolitan, 8/15, 53% regional) in Australia. Data will be collected at 3 time points: before implementation (T0), immediately after the 6-month implementation period (T1), and again after a 6-month maintenance period (T2). We will undertake medical record audits to determine any change in the proportion of inpatients receiving optimal UI/LUTS care, including assessment, diagnosis, and management plans. Potential economic implications (cost and consequences) for hospitals implementing our intervention will be determined. Results: This study was approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (HNEHREC Reference No. 18/10/17/4.02). Preimplementation data collection (T0) was completed in March 2020. As of November 2020, 87% (13/15) wards have completed implementation and are undertaking postimplementation data collection (T1). Conclusions: Our practice-change package is designed to reduce the current inpatient UI/LUTS evidence-based practice gap, such as those identified through national stroke audits. This study has been designed to provide clinicians, managers, and policy makers with the evidence needed to assess the potential benefit of further wide-scale implementation of our practice-change package. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/22902

BACKGROUND Urinary incontinence (UI) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are commonly experienced by adult patients in hospitals (inpatients). Although peak bodies recommend that health services have systems for optimal UI and LUTS care, they are often not delivered. For example, results from the 2017 Australian National Stroke Audit Acute Services indicated that of the one-third of acute stroke inpatients with UI, only 18% received a management plan. In the 2018 Australian National Stroke Audit Rehabilitation Services, half of the 41% of patients with UI received a management plan. There is little reporting of effective inpatient interventions to systematically deliver optimal UI/LUTS care. OBJECTIVE This study aims to determine whether our UI/LUTS practice-change package is feasible and effective for delivering optimal UI/LUTS care in an inpatient setting. The package includes our intervention that has been synthesized from the best-available evidence on UI/LUTS care and a theoretically informed implementation strategy targeting identified barriers and enablers. The package is targeted at clinicians working in the participating wards. METHODS This is a pragmatic, real-world, before- and after-implementation study conducted at 12 hospitals (15 wards: 7/15, 47% metropolitan, 8/15, 53% regional) in Australia. Data will be collected at 3 time points: before implementation (T0), immediately after the 6-month implementation period (T1), and again after a 6-month maintenance period (T2). We will undertake medical record audits to determine any change in the proportion of inpatients receiving optimal UI/LUTS care, including assessment, diagnosis, and management plans. Potential economic implications (cost and consequences) for hospitals implementing our intervention will be determined. RESULTS This study was approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (HNEHREC Reference No. 18/10/17/4.02). Preimplementation data collection (T0) was completed in March 2020. As of November 2020, 87% (13/15) wards have completed implementation and are undertaking postimplementation data collection (T1). CONCLUSIONS Our practice-change package is designed to reduce the current inpatient UI/LUTS evidence-based practice gap, such as those identified through national stroke audits. This study has been designed to provide clinicians, managers, and policy makers with the evidence needed to assess the potential benefit of further wide-scale implementation of our practice-change package. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/22902

Objective: To describe the experience of non‐government organisation (NGO) staff implementing a community‐based stroke recovery program based on the principles of environmental enrichment. Design: A qualitative descriptive study to capture staff experiences. Semi‐structured interviews with staff were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Setting: A community‐based NGO service in regional New South Wales, Australia. Participants: Eight staff members employed in a regional NGO and involved in the implementation of the program, including a program coordinator, a physiotherapist, allied health assistants, creative artists and managers. Results: Four themes were identified: (1) We've got a great space here—highlighted the importance of the physical environment, access and location; (2) There's an order to it—described the program's strong foundations formed through training, defined processes and support; (3) We make it work—demonstrated the flexibility and adaptability of staff in responding to individual needs and overcoming challenges and (4) Enriching lives—captured the sense of community, positivity and recovery outcomes. Staff experiences aligned closely with self‐determination theory, reflecting feelings of capability, confidence and connection. Conclusion: Staff in a regional NGO felt well‐supported and capable of delivering a community‐based stroke program. This demonstrates the potential role NGO services may play in addressing gaps in stroke recovery care in regional Australia. The methods used in this study can be used to implement this and other similar community‐based programs with NGO services in the future.