From: How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review
Locally defined patient outcomes based on national guidelines | Any evidence from the data |
---|---|
Greater patient involvement in identifying and planning to address their ongoing needs. | Minimal evidence, and only for those who were already pro-active in addressing their ongoing needs. |
Access to a wide range of information about NHS, voluntary, community and social services that will contribute to achieving stroke related goals. | The SA co-ordinator provided comprehensive information about local services; the SNSs provided limited information and/or advised the patient to contact the SA. |
Feeling supported and more confident. | Limited evidence, mainly those who were confident and had good social support. |
Will be less likely to be readmitted to hospital. | No evidence but SNSs did identify medical concerns requiring follow-up (and urgently, in a few instances). |
Will be less likely to have another stroke. | As above. |
Improved health and general well-being. | No evidence but indirectly the review may have contributed to some improvement for those who were more able and articulate. |
Reduced GP appointments. | No evidence. |
Reduced dependency on social services. | No evidence. |
Stroke Association overall service outcomes | |
Improved quality of life | Potentially an indirect outcome through signposting respondents to community services. |
Improved medication compliance | No evidence for SA reviews but those reviewed by SNSs valued their tailored medical advice and expertise which could have led to improved adherence. |
Reduced hospital admissions | No evidence. |
Reduced social isolation | As for improved quality of life – potentially an indirect outcome. |