Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of documentation of Quality Indicator Tool items of the Stroke Nursing Guideline

From: Implementation and feasibility of the stroke nursing guideline in the care of patients with stroke: a mixed methods study

 

Pre-test Group (N = 44)

Post-test Group (N = 34)

p-valuea

 

No (%)b

Yes (%)

No (%)

Yes (%)

 

Mobility and Activities of daily living (n, %)

   

Assess. with FIM < 72 h of admission

33 (75)

11 (25)

14 (41)

20 (59)

0.002

Nursing diagnosis of mobility

4 (9)

39 (91)

1 (3)

33 (97)

0.261

Evaluation of care

33 (75)

11 (25)

28 (85)

5 (15)

0.292

Limitation in self-care

17 (39)

27 (61)

9 (26)

25 (74)

0.258

Mobilization facilitation <24 h

19 (47)

21 (53)

7 (22)

25 (78)

0.024

Frequency of training exercises

12 (35)

22 (65)

10 (39)

16 (61)

0.180

Walking exercises

4 (14)

25 (86)

4 (17)

20(83)

0.778

Training of ADL activities

12 (30)

28 (70)

2 (7)

26 (93)

0.022

Falls (n, %)

     

MORSE screening

34 (77)

10 (23)

21 (62)

13 (38)

0.306

Pain and pain treatment (n, %)

     

Patients asked about pain

10 (23)

34 (77)

17 (50)

17 (50)

0.012

Pain diagnosis

10 (23)

34 (77)

6 (18)

28 (82)

0.582

Pain assessment with a scale

23 (74)

8 (26)

16 (73)

6 (27)

0.905

Fixed pain treatment

7 (21)

26 (79)

9 (39)

14 (61)

0.144

PN pain treatment

10 (30)

23 (70)

8 (32)

17 (68)

0.890

Non-pharmacological pain treatment

22 (73)

8 (27)

12 (55)

10 (45)

0.159

Comforting

42 (96)

2 (4)

32 (94)

2 (6)

0.589

Massage

43 (98)

1 (2)

31 (91)

3 (9)

0.217

Electrotherapy

44 (100)

0 (0)

34 (100)

0 (0)

–

Ankle splint

43 (98)

1 (2)

34 (100)

0 (0)

0.564

Relaxation

44 (100)

0 (0)

34 (100)

0 (0)

–

Distraction

44 (100)

0 (0)

34 (100)

0 (0)

–

Pain treatment never given

28 (78)

8 (22)

21 (78)

6 (22)

1.000

Evaluation of pain treatment

4 (14)

25 (86)

7 (33)

14 (67)

0.097

Depressive symptoms (n, %)

     

Psychological distress diagnosis

18 (41)

26 (59)

15 (45)

18 (55)

0.690

Assessment with PHQ9

–

–

29 (88)

4 (12)

–

Identification of depressive symptoms

–

3 (7)

–

3 (9)

–

Consultation other professionals for the diagnosis and treatment

25 (58)

18 (42)

13 (38)

21 (62)

0.083

Patient teaching (n, %)

     

Patient education

37 (84)

7 (16)

15 (47)

17 (53)

0.001

Educational brochure

40 (95)

2 (5)

15 (48)

16 (52)

0.000

Education repeated

30 (91)

3 (9)

30 (91)

14 (19)

0.049

Participation in teaching sessions

39 (89)

5 (11)

27 (82)

6 (18)

0.397

Discharge planning (n, %)

     

Electronic Patient Record

11 (32)

23 (68)

18 (42)

25 (58)

0.393

Quality Discharge Planning*

7 (30)

16 (70)

22 (85)

4 (15)

0.001

Discharge Interview

22 (69)

10 (31)

43 (100)

0 (0)

0.000

Social support

7 (22)

25 (78)

14 (38)

23 (62)

0.151

Advice follow-up

20 (63)

12 (37)

36 (92)

3 (8)

0.002

Written infomation & recommendation

25 (81)

6 (19)

42 (100)

0 (0)

0.004

  1. a) p-value calculated with Chi square test; p-value cursive indicates significant difference between groups;
  2. b) No = very limited information documented; Yes = somewhat good and very good, with relevant information