IntroductionThe National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke recommend ‘routine follow-up of patients 6 months post discharge’. The Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme sets a standard of 6 months postadmission follow-up, capturing data on process and outcomes. There appears to be no convincing model of stroke follow-up at 6 months, and despite evidence of unmet need in almost 50% of stroke survivors 1–5 years after their stroke, little work focuses on the first 12 months of recovery. By listening to the living experiences of stroke, the research aims to tailor the stroke care pathway to the needs of those affected.Methods and analysisA focus group of six stroke survivors and carers will be invited to identify appropriate interview questions about the value of follow-up at 6 months, ensuring that this study has its genesis in the participant experience. A pilot study of four stroke survivors will ascertain the feasibility of the method. Thirty stroke survivors from the follow-up clinic will be invited to take part in semistructured interviews. Raw data, in the form of digital recordings of the interviews, will be transcribed. Interview transcriptions will be checked by the participant for accuracy prior to analysis using NVivo software. Literal and reflective narrative analysis will be used to code transcribed text to examine shared themes and reflect on content.Ethics and disseminationStudy documentation has been reviewed by the Coventry and Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee; the chief investigator met with the committee to scrutinise the study and justify its methodology. The committee has approved this study. A copy of the final report will be given to participants, the Stroke Association, the local Clinical Commissioning Group and participants’ general practitioners. It is intended to disseminate the results locally by presentation to the Trust board, at academic conferences and by publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

No abstract

Introduction: Along with an increase in opioid deaths, there has been a desire to increase the accessibility of naloxone. However, in the absence of respiratory depression, naloxone is unlikely to be beneficial and may be deleterious if it precipitates withdrawal in individuals with central nervous system (CNS) depression due to non-opioid etiologies. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate how effective prehospital providers were in administering naloxone. Methods: This is a retrospective study of naloxone administration in two large urban Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems. The proportion of patients who had a respiratory rate of at least 12 breaths per minute at the time of naloxone administration by prehospital providers was determined. Results: During the two-year study period, 2,580 patients who received naloxone by prehospital providers were identified. The median (interquartile range) respiratory rate prior to naloxone administration was 12 (6-16) breaths per minute. Using an a priori respiratory rate of under 12 breaths per minute to define respiratory depression, only 1,232 (47.8%; 95% CI, 50.3%-54.2%) subjects who received naloxone by prehospital providers had respiratory depression. Conclusion: This study showed that EMS providers in Los Angeles County, California (USA) frequently administered naloxone to individuals without respiratory depression.

No abstract