Mixed methods feasibility study for a trial of blood pressure telemonitoring for people who have had stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA).

Background Good blood pressure (BP) control reduces the risk of recurrence of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Although there is strong evidence that BP telemonitoring helps achieve good control, none of the major trials have considered the effectiveness in stroke/TIA survivors. We therefore conducted a feasibility study for a trial of BP telemonitoring for stroke/ TIA survivors with uncontrolled BP in primary care. Method Phase 1 was a pilot trial involving 55 patients stratified by stroke/TIA randomised 3:1 to BP telemonitoring for 6 months or usual care. Phase 2 was a qualitative evaluation and comprised semi-structured interviews with 16 trial participants who received telemonitoring and 3 focus groups with 23 members of stroke support groups and 7 carers. Results Overall, 125 patients (60 stroke patients, 65 TIA patients) were approached and 55 (44%) patients were randomised including 27 stroke patients and 28 TIA patients. Fifty-two participants (95%) attended the 6-month follow-up appointment, but one declined the second daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) measurement resulting in a 93% completion rate for ABPM − the proposed primary outcome measure for a full trial. Adherence to telemonitoring was good; of the 40 participants who were telemonitoring, 38 continued to provide readings throughout the 6 months. There was a mean reduction of 10.1 mmHg in systolic ABPM in the telemonitoring group compared with 3.8 mmHg in the control group, which suggested the potential for a substantial effect from telemonitoring. Our qualitative analysis found that many stroke patients were concerned about their BP and telemonitoring increased their engagement, was easy, convenient and reassuring Conclusions A full-scale trial is feasible, likely to recruit well and have good rates of compliance and follow-up.

Design thinking - a critical analysis.

The latest buzz phrase to enter the world of design research is “Design Thinking”. But is this anything new and does it really have any practical or theoretical relevance to the design world? Many sceptics believe the term has more to do with business strategy and little to do with the complex process of designing products, services and systems. Moreover, many view the term as misleading and a cheap attempt to piggyback the world of business management onto design. This paper seeks to ask is design thinking anything new? Several authors have explicitly or implicitly articulated the term “Design Thinking” before, such as Peter Rowe’s seminal book “Design Thinking” [1] first published in 1987 and Herbert Simon’s “The Sciences of the Artificial” [2] first published in 1969. In Tim Brown’s “Change by Design” [3], design thinking is thought of as a system of three overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps namely inspiration – the problem or opportunity that motivates the search for solutions; ideation – the process of generating, developing and testing ideas; and implementation – the path that leads from the design studio, lab and factory to the market. This paper seeks to examine and critically analyse the tenets of this new design thinking manifesto set against three case studies of modern design practice. As such, the paper will compare design thinking theory with the reality of design in practice.