ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Stroke Coordinators' Perspectives on Sustaining Use of Fever, Sugar (Hyperglycaemia) and Swallow (FeSS) Protocols. Process Evaluation Using a Sustainability Framework.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- OSH inspector ratio to strengthen decent workplace safety and health: a cross-regional trend analysis research.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo: (i) examine Stroke Coordinators' perspectives of factors influencing sustained adherence to evidence-based protocols to manage Fever, Sugar (hyperglycaemia) and Swallow (FeSS) and (ii) compare findings between hospitals with consistently high FeSS Protocol adherence versus those with consistently low or variable adherence.
designQualitative descriptive process evaluation using in-depth, individual semi-structured interviews.
methodsHospitals that participated in ≥ 3 national stroke audit cycles were ranked by mean adherence to FeSS Protocols and stratified by consistently high, low and variable adherence. Three hospitals from each adherence strata were purposefully selected after further stratification by (i) previous participation in a FeSS Intervention study; and (ii) location (state, remoteness). Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken, with themes mapped to factors from the framework to compare findings by adherence level and contextualise the findings in relation to sustainability.
resultsAnalysis of 14 interviews identified two themes [and sub-themes]: (1) Stroke Coordinator as sustainability champions and boundary spanners [maintenance of implementation strategies; fostering working relationships, communication and influence] mapped to Workforce factors, organisational and Innovation-specific factors; and (2) Hospital executive and middle management respect of stroke specialty [designated area for stroke care; recognition of stroke specialist nursing skills; previous FeSS Intervention study participation] mapped to Workforce and Political factors. Key differences by adherence groupings related to the Stroke Coordinator model, workplace configuration, and the impact of interdepartmental relationships and competing organisational directives.
conclusionThe Stroke Coordinator role was pivotal for sustained use of evidence-based FeSS Protocols for acute stroke care, driving multidisciplinary collaboration. IMPACT/IMPLICATIONS: Internationally, many patients do not receive evidence-based acute stroke care. Despite the proven benefits of the FeSS Protocols, consistent implementation remains a challenge. This study recognises the critical importance of a dedicated Stroke Coordinator for all acute stroke hospitals. Their advocacy for the use of evidence-based interventions is key to improving stroke outcomes. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting as it focused solely on the professional experiences of stroke care providers.
trial registrationACTRN 12623000445673. Registered 1 May 2023.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.