No abstract

BackgroundAfter a stroke, a person has an increased risk of recurrent strokes. Effective secondary prevention can provide significant gains in the form of reduced disability and mortality. While considerable efforts have been made to provide high quality acute treatment of stroke, there has been less focus on the follow-up in general practice after the stroke. One strategy for the implementation of high quality, evidence-based treatment is the development and distribution of clinical guidelines. However, from similar fields of practice, we know that guidelines are often not adhered to. The purpose of this study was to investigate to what degree patients who have suffered a stroke are followed up in general practice, if recommendations in the national guidelines are followed, and if patients achieve the treatment goals recommended in the guidelines.MethodsThe study included patients with cerebral infarction identified by the ICD-10 discharge diagnoses I63.0 trough I63.9 in two Norwegian local hospitals. In total 51 patients participated. They were listed with general practitioners in 18 different clinics. The material consists of the general practitioners’ (GPs’) medical records for these patients in the first year of follow-up; in total 381 consultations.ResultsOf the 381 consultations during the first year of follow-up, 71 (19%) had stroke as the main topic. The blood pressure (BP) target value < 140/90 mmHg was reached by 24 patients (47%). The low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol target value < 2.0 mmol/L was reached by 14 (27%) of the 51 patients. In total six patients (12%) got advice on physical activity and three (6%) received dietary advice. No advice about alcohol consumption was recorded.ConclusionsThe findings support earlier claims that the development and distribution of guidelines alone is not enough to implement a certain practice. Despite being a serious condition, stroke gets limited attention in the first year of follow-up in general practice. This can be explained by the complexity of general practice, where even a serious condition loses the competition for attention to other apparently equally important issues.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0872-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The acute treatment for stroke takes place in hospitals and in Norway follow-up of stroke survivors residing in the communities largely takes place in general practice. In order to provide continuous post stroke care, these two levels of care must collaborate, and information and knowledge must be transferred between them. The discharge summary, a written report from the hospital, is central to this communication. Norwegian national guidelines for treatment of stroke, issued in 2010, therefore give recommendations on the content of the discharge summaries. One ambition is to achieve collaboration and knowledge transfer, contributing to integration of the health care services. However, studies suggest that adherence to guidelines in general practice is weak, that collaboration within the health care services does not work the way the authorities intend, and that health care services are fragmented. This study aims to assess to what degree the discharge summaries adhere to the guideline recommendations on content and to what degree they are used as tools for knowledge transfer and collaboration between secondary and primary care. Methods The study was an analysis of 54 discharge summaries for home-dwelling stroke patients. The patients had been discharged from two Norwegian local hospitals in 2011 and 2012 and followed up in primary care. We examined whether content was according to guidelines’ recommendations and performed a descriptive and interpretative discourse analysis, using tools adapted from an established integrated approach to discourse analysis.  Results We found a varying degree of adherence to the different advice for the contents of the discharge summaries. One tendency was clear: topics relevant here and now, i.e. at the hospital, were included, while topics most relevant for the later follow-up in primary care were to a larger degree omitted. In most discharge summaries, we did not find anything indicating that the doctors at the hospital made themselves available for collaboration with primary care after dischargeof the patient. Conclusions The discharge summaries did not fulfill their potential to serve as tools for collaboration, knowledge transfer, and guideline implementation. Instead, they may contribute to sustain the gap between hospital medicine and general practice.

No abstract