↓ Skip to main content

Triage, treatment and transfer of patients with stroke in emergency department trial (the T3 Trial): a cluster randomised trial protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Triage, treatment and transfer of patients with stroke in emergency department trial (the T3 Trial): a cluster randomised trial protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0503-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandy Middleton, Chris Levi, Simeon Dale, N. Wah Cheung, Elizabeth McInnes, Julie Considine, Catherine D’Este, Dominique A. Cadilhac, Jeremy Grimshaw, Richard Gerraty, Louise Craig, Verena Schadewaldt, Patrick McElduff, Mark Fitzgerald, Clare Quinn, Greg Cadigan, Sonia Denisenko, Mark Longworth, Jeanette Ward, On behalf of the T3 Trialist Collaborators

Abstract

Internationally recognised evidence-based guidelines recommend appropriate triage of patients with stroke in emergency departments (EDs), administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and proactive management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing before prompt transfer to a stroke unit to maximise outcomes. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness in EDs of a theory-informed, nurse-initiated, intervention to improve multidisciplinary triage, treatment and transfer (T(3)) of patients with acute stroke to improve 90-day death and dependency. Organisational and contextual factors associated with intervention uptake also will be evaluated. This prospective, multicentre, parallel group, cluster randomised trial with blinded outcome assessment will be conducted in EDs of hospitals with stroke units in three Australian states and one territory. EDs will be randomised 1:1 within strata defined by state and tPA volume to receive either the T(3) intervention or no additional support (control EDs). Our T(3) intervention comprises an evidence-based care bundle targeting: (1) triage: routine assignment of patients with suspected stroke to Australian Triage Scale category 1 or 2; (2) treatment: screening for tPA eligibility and administration of tPA where applicable; instigation of protocols for management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing; and (3) transfer: prompt admission to the stroke unit. We will use implementation science behaviour change methods informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework [1, 2] consisting of (i) workshops to determine barriers and local solutions; (ii) mixed interactive and didactic education; (iii) local clinical opinion leaders; and (iv) reminders in the form of email, telephone and site visits. Our primary outcome measure is 90 days post-admission death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale >2). Secondary outcomes are health status (SF-36), functional dependency (Barthel Index), quality of life (EQ-5D); and quality of care outcomes, namely, monitoring and management practices for thrombolysis, fever, hyperglycaemia, swallowing and prompt transfer. Outcomes will be assessed at the patient level. A separate process evaluation will examine contextual factors to successful intervention uptake. At the time of publication, EDs have been randomised and the intervention is being implemented. This theoretically informed intervention is aimed at addressing important gaps in care to maximise 90-day health outcomes for patients with stroke. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000939695 . Registered 2 September 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 291 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 13%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Researcher 25 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 41 14%
Unknown 109 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 85 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 13%
Psychology 13 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 20 7%
Unknown 121 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,466,869
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#544
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,954
of 318,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#9
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.