BACKGROUNDThe role of supine positioning after acute stroke in improving cerebral blood flow and the countervailing risk of aspiration pneumonia have led to variation in head positioning in clinical practice. We wanted to determine whether outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke could be improved by positioning the patient to be lying flat (i.e., fully supine with the back horizontal and the face upwards) during treatment to increase cerebral perfusion. METHODSIn a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover trial conducted in nine countries, we assigned 11,093 patients with acute stroke (85% of the strokes were ischemic) to receive care in either a lying-flat position or a sitting-up position with the head elevated to at least 30 degrees, according to the randomization assignment of the hospital to which they were admitted; the designated position was initiated soon after hospital admission and was maintained for 24 hours. The primary outcome was degree of disability at 90 days, as assessed with the use of the modified Rankin scale (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability and a score of 6 indicating death). RESULTSThe median interval between the onset of stroke symptoms and the initiation of the assigned position was 14 hours (interquartile range, 5 to 35). Patients in the lying-flat group were less likely than patients in the sitting-up group to maintain the position for 24 hours (87% vs. 95%, P<0.001). In a proportional-odds model, there was no significant shift in the distribution of 90-day disability outcomes on the global modified Rankin scale between patients in the lying-flat group and patients in the sitting-up group (unadjusted odds ratio for a difference in the distribution of scores on the modified Rankin scale in the lying-flat group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.10; P = 0.84). Mortality within 90 days was 7.3% among the patients in the lying-flat group and 7.4% among the patients in the sitting-up group (P = 0.83). There were no significant betweengroup differences in the rates of serious adverse events, including pneumonia. CONCLUSIONSDisability outcomes after acute stroke did not differ significantly between patients assigned to a lying-flat position for 24 hours and patients assigned to a sitting-up position with the head elevated to at least 30 degrees for 24 hours. (Funded by the

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 22, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

No abstract

We explored health professionals' views of implementing a systematic voiding program (SVP) in a multi-site qualitative process evaluation in stroke services recruited to the intervention arms of a cluster randomized controlled feasibility trial during 2011-13. We conducted semistructured group or individual interviews with 38 purposively selected nursing, managerial and care staff involved in delivering the SVP. Content analysis of transcripts used normalization process theory as a pre-specified organization-level exploratory framework. Barriers to implementing the SVP included perceived lack of suitability for some patient groups; patient fear of extending hospital stay; and difficulties with SVP enactment, scheduling, timing, recording, and monitoring. Enablers included the guidance provided by the SVP; patient and relative involvement; extra staff; improved nursing skill and confidence; and experience of success.Three potential mechanisms of consistency, visibility, and individualization linked the SVP process with improvements in outcome, and should be emphasized in SVP implementation.

et al (2015) Identifying Continence OptioNs after Stroke (ICONS): an evidence synthesis, case study and exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of the introduction of a systematic voiding programme for patients with urinary incontinence after stroke in secondary care. Programme Grants for Applied Research, 3 (1).It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from the work.http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/pgfar03010For more information about UCLan's research in this area go to http://www.uclan.ac.uk/researchgroups/ and search for . This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0707-10059. The contractual start date was in October 2008. The final report began editorial review in September 2013 and was accepted for publication in July 2014. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report. Published by the NI...