NeuroRehabilitation OnLine (NROL): Description of a multidisciplinary group telerehabilitation innovation for stroke and neurological conditions using the TIDieR checklist
===========================================================================================================================================================================

* Suzanne Ackerley
* Neil Wilson
* Paul Boland
* Rosemary Peel
* Louise Connell

## Abstract

**Background** Providing recommended amounts of rehabilitation for stroke and neurological patients is challenging. Telerehabilitation is viable for delivering rehabilitation and an acceptable adjunct to in-person therapy. NeuroRehabilitation OnLine (NROL) was developed as a pilot and subsequently operationalised as a regional innovation embedded across four National Health Service (NHS) Trusts.

**Objective** To describe the NROL innovation to assist future implementation and replication efforts.

**Methods** The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, with guidance from the TIDieR-Telehealth extension, was used to describe NROL. The description was developed collaboratively by clinical academics, therapists, managers, and researchers. Updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains were used to describe the context in which the innovation was delivered.

**Results** NROL delivers online group-based real-time neurorehabilitation with technology assistance provided, incorporating multidisciplinary targeted therapy and peer support. Procedures, materials and structure are detailed to demonstrate how NROL is embedded within a healthcare system. NROL uses existing NHS therapy workforce alongside dedicated NROL roles, including an essential technology support role. Selection of NROL groups is dependent on patient need. The NROL innovation is modified over time in response to patient and staff feedback. NROL described here is situated within a regional stroke and neurorehabilitation network in North-West England, aligns with local and national strategies, and capitalises on an existing clinical-academic partnership.

**Conclusion** This comprehensive description of a regional NROL innovation, and clarification of core components, should facilitate other healthcare settings to adapt and implement NROL for their context. Continuous evaluation alongside implementation will ensure maximal impact for neurorehabilitation.

## Background

Despite a wealth of evidence that greater amounts of rehabilitation can improve outcomes (1-4) providing stroke and brain injury patients with the recommended amount of therapy remains a clinical and workforce challenge (5). Increasing access to and opportunity for therapy is a critical step to addressing shortfalls in therapy intensity and ideally needs to be feasible with limited workforce resources.

Telerehabilitation, the provision of rehabilitation remotely via telecommunication devices, has developed as a viable complement to in-person therapy and offers one possible solution to help mitigate challenges. It can deliver conventional in-person therapies online with equivalent outcomes (5-10) and with similar attendance levels and acceptability to patients (11). Patients and staff report advantages in terms of saving time, energy and travel (12-14). Although not a new approach, rapid expanded adoption of telerehabilitation in routine practice was spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic (15-18), with further encouraging data collected during this time (14, 19-21). In the UK and Ireland, clinical guidelines for stroke rehabilitation now recommend the provision of therapist monitored, patient-centred remote rehabilitation programmes alongside conventional in-person therapy (22).

A group-based real-time telerehabilitation innovation for patients with acquired brain injury was developed and piloted in London, UK, entitled NROL (NeuroRehabilitation OnLine). This standalone version of NROL demonstrated positive impacts on patient-reported outcomes (20). NROL was subsequently adapted and operationalised within the UK National Health Service (NHS) by embedding a recurring six-week multidisciplinary group-based telerehabilitation innovation into an existing service. Implementation with concurrent evaluation at a single NHS Trust level yielded positive results, demonstrating favourable patient and staff opinion, sustainable staffing and resource efficiencies with good clinical outcomes for patients (14). NROL was then expanded into a regional innovation involving four NHS Trusts in the North-West of England aligning to the NHS new Integrated Care System structure to work collaboratively across regions. It remains part of a hybrid approach to service delivery to complement in-person rehabilitation. NROL is acknowledged as an exemplar initiative for delivering remote rehabilitation (22).

Despite the successful development of NROL, as yet it has only been described in its standalone version (20) with no descriptive detail available for the current regional, multi-site model. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist specifies criteria for the reporting of complex interventions (23). This article describes the NROL innovation developed for regional use within an existing healthcare service using the TIDieR checklist guidance, with the aim of assisting future implementation and replication efforts.

## Methods

This article describes NROL using the 12-items of the TIDieR checklist (23) and incorporates guidance from the TIDieR-Telehealth extension, providing telehealth-specific criteria for effective description of telehealth interventions (24). Checklist details were developed iteratively and collaboratively, with input from staff involved in NROL implementation and evaluation including clinical academics, therapists, managers, and researchers. Initially, individual TIDieR checklists describing each NROL group in a high level of detail were produced. These informed development of NROL staff manual and standard operating procedure documents. Finally, we abstracted from these documents to develop a superordinate TIDieR checklist, aimed at describing NROL as a delivery method within an existing healthcare system for application at a regional level.

Given the extensive interplay between an innovation and context, the settings in which NROL was implemented are described according to the domains of the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (25).

## Results

### Item 1: Intervention (innovation) name

#### NeuroRehabilitation OnLine (NROL)

### Item 2: Why

The purpose of NROL is to increase access and opportunity to neurorehabilitation for adult patients actively receiving community stroke and neurorehabilitation services within an existing healthcare system. NROL utilises an online delivery platform offering potential advantages to staff and patients in terms of saving time, energy and travel, and enabling delivery of more therapy to more people using an existing therapy workforce (14). Readily accessible technology assistance to learn how to use the required technology and help overcome barriers is important for optimising inclusivity and meeting the needs of this patient population (26-28).

NROL delivers group-based therapy. Group rehabilitation formats can help maximise patient contacts and staffing efficiencies whilst capitalising on the psychosocial benefits of peer support opportunities (20, 29). Peer-based interventions are viewed positively by those with acquired brain injury and neurological conditions (30, 31), and peer support elements are recommended for interventions in stroke (32). Favourable evidence supports the use of group therapy for the aspects of neurorehabilitation included within NROL (29, 33, 34).

NROL was embedded within an existing system (NHS), rather than being standalone, to support a sustainable service delivery model that could augment rehabilitation provision. The innovation aligns with strategic priorities at a local and national level. For example, NHS England recommend using data and digital technologies, making the most effective use of resources and establishing collaborative systems, as encompassed by NHS priorities and the National Stroke Service Model (35, 36).

This TIDieR checklist describes NROL encompassing a regional approach involving four NHS Trusts in the North-West of England. Cross-organisational working should allow a critical mass of patients for groups where impairment incidence is relatively low (i.e., dysphasia group) and a collective use of workforce. Collaborative working should also enable a community of practice and shared learning.

### Item 3: What (materials) and Item 4: What (procedures)

The materials and the procedures for NROL were developed for remote delivery. They will be described together for the entry, delivery and exit of the 6-week NROL programme and are depicted in Figure 1. A secure ‘NROL hub’ collaboration platform (in MS Teams) was created as a repository for shared NROL information and resources. Key documents include a ‘NROL standard operating procedure (SOP)’ and relevant organisational and governance approvals (e.g., Data Protection Impact Assessment). NROL was branded with a logo used widely on staff and patient-facing documentation, and t-shirts worn by NROL group facilitators and technology support to increase visibility and establish a sense of a cohesive team.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/02/18/2023.02.16.23286038/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/18/2023.02.16.23286038/F1)

Figure 1. 

#### NROL entry materials and procedures

Patients under the care of stroke and neurorehabilitation services with adequate access to computer hardware and connectivity are eligible for entry to NROL. The NROL staff manual provides guidance to help therapy team members identify suitable patients. This living (continually edited and updated) ‘NROL staff manual’ provides an overview of NROL, group information and eligibility criteria, and referral process detail (see Supplementary file). Therapy team members discuss NROL with their patient and gain verbal consent for their participation in specified groups. A ‘NROL patient leaflet’ can be given to patients to complement verbal information. Eligible, consenting patients are referred to NROL using a ‘NROL referral form’. Therapy team members submit the NROL referral form to the NROL hub. NROL support staff enter referral form information onto a ‘NROL database’ (MS Excel), a document used to collate patient demographic and service information, complete timetabling and document technology assistance.

Prior to programme start, a NROL staff member contacts new patients to administer ‘NROL outcome measures’, currently including the EQ-5D-5L for measuring health-related quality of life (37), the Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (SSEQ) for measuring self-efficacy (38) (modified for use with other neurological conditions), and the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) for measuring activity performance (39). A NROL technology support staff member completes a technology set-up with each patient to ensure they have the correct equipment (e.g., IT hardware and software (MS Teams, email), connectivity, group-specific requirements) and a suitable home environment to take part in their specified groups. A ‘NROL technology support guide’ can be provided to patients for written guidance. Patients admitted to physical groups are provided with a ‘NROL physical group guide’ describing what they need, and how to set up their environment and webcam to safely perform exercises. Patients receive a ‘NROL entry email’ detailing their personalised NROL 6-week programme, which is also sent to the referrer. Relevant group invites are sent to patients and staff.

#### NROL delivery materials and procedures

Patients join NROL groups according to their personalised programme. Current groups are described in the NROL staff manual (Supplementary file). Targeted therapy groups can include ‘physical’ groups involving exercise or upper limb rehabilitation led by physiotherapy and occupational therapy staff, and ‘talking’ groups including cognitive rehabilitation, living well, fatigue management or communication therapy, led by occupational therapy, psychology and speech and language therapy staff. Many of the groups are jointly led by more than one discipline. Targeted therapy groups encompass interactive, educational, and practical elements. In addition, community groups are offered to all patients and include an introduction to NROL (Meet and Greet) and an optional weekly peer support group (Café NROL). Patients are sent a prompt (i.e., text, email) in the first two weeks of their programme to assist attendance. Technology assistance is available to patients and staff during each NROL session. Throughout the programme if a patient is expected in a group but does not join, the NROL technology support staff member makes contact to offer assistance.

NROL is delivered online (MS Teams video conferencing application) on existing staff devices. NROL group facilitators and the NROL technology support staff member require webcam and microphone-enabled devices and a stable (preferably wired) internet connection to deliver NROL groups. A headset can assist clear communication. For physical groups, a large screen television with a portable microphone is used for monitoring of patients whilst performing exercises. Session content is developed by group facilitators and based on evidence-based practice guidelines, and may include discussions, demonstrations, and shared presentations (MS Powerpoint). Group facilitators and the NROL technology support staff member use the NROL database during sessions for accessing patient details, timetabling information and for recording attendance. Access to a telephone is required in case of adverse events. Group facilitators are required to ensure clinical notes are entered for all patients in attendance at sessions. Weekly NROL staff meetings are held to update and discuss NROL delivery and group facilitators meet separately as required.

Patients require internet connectivity, and a webcam and microphone enabled device appropriate to their groups (e.g., patients in physical groups require a large screen device), with MS teams installed. Patients participating in physical groups require equipment for enabling stability when performing exercises, such as a chair, frame or table. Specific equipment may be requested for functional task practice and patients are advised to wear comfortable footwear and clothing and have access to water or a suitable drink. Patients participating in talking groups are advised to have a pen and paper for making notes or practicing cognitive exercises. All patients should have a telephone in case of technology issues or adverse events and should wear their pendant alarm if they have one.

#### NROL exit materials and procedures

On programme completion, patients receive a ‘NROL exit email’ with summary information and resources, which is also sent to the referrer. NROL outcome measures are repeated, and patients also complete a patient satisfaction survey.

#### Evaluation

Evaluation occurs alongside NROL delivery and includes analysis of service and patient level information. Data (quantitative and qualitative) are sourced from the NROL database, and outcome measures, and patient satisfaction surveys responses, and relevant analysis is undertaken by the NROL leads. Data is summarised and feedback at multiple clinical levels (delivery, organisational, regional) and to academic audiences.

#### Staff training

Meetings are held to discuss NROL evaluation findings. Shared learning sessions are run to optimise learnings across groups. General NROL information is shared with staff across trusts by NROL staff, including NROL leads and nominated NROL champions, during team and service meetings, and via emails and posts on the NROL hub.

New staff are introduced to NROL during orientation. Staff can observe NROL sessions for experiential learning, particularly when training to become a group facilitator. Staff training and guidance is available as required and provided remotely by NROL leadership, support or NROL therapy staff depending on training need. This includes training from technology support and a ‘NROL staff technology guide’ to upskill staff and improve confidence.

### Item 5: Who provided

NROL is provided by therapy staff from stroke and neurorehabilitation teams at partnered NHS Trusts. This is supported by a wider NROL team encompassed within a clinical-academic partnership. NROL uses an existing NHS workforce alongside dedicated NROL roles for the operational and administrative oversight, and technology support.

#### Leadership

NROL leadership is managed through a clinical-academic partnership team consisting of senior NHS Trust management staff, academic project staff, and a dedicated NROL operational lead.

#### NROL therapy staff

NROL delivery is provided by NROL therapy staff comprised of existing NHS therapists, therapy assistants and students. NROL therapy staff represent physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and psychology disciplines at a range of seniority. Online groups are staffed by a minimum of two group facilitators (therapists and/or therapy assistants).

#### Support staff

NROL delivery is facilitated by support staff. A dedicated NROL technology support staff member provides technology assistance to patients and therapy staff. A NROL administrator assists with processing referrals and patient correspondence.

#### Volunteers

Volunteers are previous NROL patients or members of the stroke and neurorehabilitation community who support the running of community groups under guidance from the NROL therapy team.

### Item 6: How (mode of delivery)

Mode of delivery overlaps with the materials and procedures (see items 3 and 4). In brief, NROL is a service delivery model providing group-based rehabilitation as an adjunct to in-person therapy. Sessions and meetings are conducted remotely (MS Teams). NROL is embedded within an existing healthcare system (NHS) and makes use of existing infrastructure (IT hardware and software).

### Item 7: Where

For NROL delivery, group facilitators and the NROL technology support staff member attend group sessions from a private, well-lit, quiet workspace. This involves real-time online co-delivery from facilitators based at different geographical locations and NHS trusts. A room with adequate space is required for demonstrating exercises in physical groups. Patients take part in NROL groups from their own home (or suitable alternative) and also require a quiet, well-lit, private room that is appropriate to the needs of the group.

### Item 8: When and how much

NROL delivery is structured into recurring 6-week ‘NROL’ blocks. Blocks facilitate integration of NROL into the existing service as they account for the need for patient flow.

NROL groups run during the working week (Monday to Friday). A NROL introductory group (Meet and Greet) runs at the start of each block. All further group sessions are scheduled for 60 minutes, with most groups run weekly. The NROL timetable is modified over time according to patient need and staffing capacity. Sessions can be rescheduled due to unforeseen circumstances or bank holidays.

The maximum number of patients within a group is determined by the group facilitators and decided pragmatically to ensure the best experience for patients and staff (see NROL staff manual for more detail). In the event of too few or too many referrals for a group, deferral to the next block or the running additional groups are considered.

### Item 9: Tailoring

Tailoring is required at patient, group and block levels.

There is flexibility regarding when NROL is integrated within a patient’s rehabilitation, and at present optimal timing is unknown. Patients joining NROL are referred to appropriate targeted therapy groups and a personalised programme created. Clinical reasoning should determine how NROL fits with a patient’s in-person overall rehabilitation package of care. Patients can attend more than one NROL block if clinically indicated and the patients remains under the active care of their stroke or neurorehabilitation team.

The needs of patients in groups will be nuanced over time requiring a responsive approach. All referrals are screened by group facilitators to ensure session content is tailored for the current needs. NROL delivery should be considerate that language used is appropriate for patients with a variety of neurological diagnoses (sudden, intermittent and progressive conditions) and chronicities.

The structure of blocks, in terms of groups offered and frequency, actively considers workforce availability. The groups provided in each block is a balance between patient demand and staff capacity. Some groups run all blocks, whilst others run intermittently. There is an attempt to minimise groups running over holiday periods. Resourceful use of available workforce is encouraged and the remote nature of NROL enables staff to deliver NROL whilst working when from home or requiring work adjustments. Student involvement can be incorporated to support groups.

### Item 10: Modifications

This article describes the NROL innovation developed for regional use. It was modified from a standalone version (20) and expanded from a project implemented at a single NHS trust (14). The core components retained include provision of online real-time neurorehabilitation with technology assistance, incorporating multidisciplinary targeted therapy and community groups whilst embodying peer support. Adaptations for integration within an existing healthcare system included inclusion of stroke and other neurological conditions with varying chronicity, delivering as an adjunct to complement existing rehabilitation, use of existing workforce and being run as recurring 6-week NROL blocks to manage patient flow.

NROL continues to be modified over time. New groups are created to meet patient need or to capitalise on changing staff skill sets. Groups can also be deferred, discontinued or replaced based on patient and staff feedback.

### Item 11: How well planned & Item 12: How well delivered (including fidelity)

Communication, resources and technology assistance are provided to optimise NROL entry and participation (See *Items 3 & 4)*. Service data are obtained and reviewed to monitor performance.

A detailed mixed-methods evaluation of NROL within a single trust is available *(Ackerley et al 23)*. Implementation and evaluation of the regional NROL programme in the North-West of England is ongoing. This multi-trust regional innovation has to date delivered 4 × 6-week NROL blocks, with 1082 patient contacts over 172 sessions provided to the 126 patients referred to NROL. Withdrawal prior to programme start (17%) and drop-out are reasonably low (15%). The median number of patients participating in a NROL block is 32 (range = 29-36). Ten different groups are currently offered across a range of therapies, with typically nine groups running per block. Therapy staffing efficiencies (ratio 0.4) are demonstrated compared to one-to-one delivery (ratio 1.0) and currently over 40 staff across the North-West are involved with group delivery. Overall NROL patient attendance is good (70%), with mechanisms in place to facilitate attendance (e.g., patients receive text/email prompts in the first two weeks of their programme). Attendance to the weekly peer support group (Café NROL) is optional however this opportunity is taken up by many patients (58%). Patient NROL outcome measure evaluation indicates improvements for many patients in health-related quality of life and activity performance over the time of their NROL programme, acknowledging that NROL is only one part of their overall rehabilitation. Overall patient satisfaction is high, with 99% of patients reporting they would recommend NROL to another person.

### Context

The NROL innovation detailed in this article is delivered within a context that can be described using the domains of inner and outer settings (25).

The inner setting is defined as the four NHS Trusts that are situated within the Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Stroke and Neurorehabilitation Delivery Network that provide community-based stroke and neurorehabilitation care for the region. The region has a population of 1.8 million and covers a large geographical footprint with urban and rural settlements, and ethnic diversity. Deprivation and poor health affect many, with differences in life expectancy and quality of life varying significantly (40). In some neighbourhoods, healthy life expectancy is 46.5 years.

Aligning with national strategies and policies, the Lancashire and South Cumbria region has a vision to work collaboratively to share skills and expertise, data and best practice across Trusts (41). A challenge is that Trusts have varied service remits (stroke, neurological or both) and infrastructure (e.g. physical, staffing levels, technology systems, governance processes). With regards to the outer setting, the impetus for starting NROL was the global pandemic, which also influenced sociocultural values of staff and patients to increase the worthiness and openness to use of remote technology. NROL also aligned with wider policy and strategies (42-44), benefitted from an already established clinical-academic partnership between the NHS and a university, and had funding from an external entity (45).

## Discussion

NROL utilises an online delivery platform, with dedicated technology assistance, to provide multidisciplinary real-time group therapy to patients actively receiving community stroke and neurorehabilitation. Telerehabilitation is recognised as having a vital role to play in future healthcare delivery (46) but as yet there are limited details of how to do this (47). To address this need, the TIDieR checklist is used as a structured method to provide a comprehensive description of a regional NROL innovation embedded within a healthcare system. The actual process of completing the TIDieR was time intensive but did provide the impetus for the team to clearly describe NROL, agreeing the core components. Consideration was given to the necessary balance of information to ensure comprehensive detail but attempting not to overwhelm. Further documentation is available as supplementary files and by contacting the corresponding author. This description details an exemplar of telerehabilitation using NROL delivered in one region, and it is acknowledged that NROL will likely need adapting for other areas given the significant interaction between an innovation and its context. This article should facilitate other healthcare settings to adapt and implement NROL for their context.

Optimal adaptation of an innovation requires an understanding of the core components that cannot be changed versus the adaptable periphery that can be changed (48, 49). The core components of NROL include provision of online real-time neurorehabilitation with technology assistance, incorporating multidisciplinary targeted therapy and community groups whilst embodying peer support. It is proposed that these core components should be consistently implemented for NROL but that the processes to achieve them are adapted to fit local conditions. Examples include the use of MS Teams to deliver groups but other online platforms are available; use of recurring 6-week NROL blocks but other timings may suit other services; the number and types of targeted therapy groups will need to reflect workforce capability and capacity. It is known innovations that have adaptability are more likely to be used in clinical practice (50, 51). Further examination of the adaptive components of NROL will help discern how it can be upscaled for use in a variety of contexts.

Context is everything (52). A limitation of the TIDieR checklist is that it does not include an item on context. Arguably to understand the innovation fully and guide future adaptations an understanding of the context is required. This is because innovations are inextricably linked to the context in which they are delivered, and achieving a good fit between these is important to ensure the innovation works as intended (53). In this article, context is deliberatively reported to help situate the innovation. NROL did take resources, time and effort to implement as a regional initiative and details on the implementation will be reported elsewhere. The need for resources to enable implementation is not unexpected (49, 54, 55) and current healthcare systems are often not set-up to facilitate this upfront effort. Influential contextual factors included leadership buy-in and commitment, a clinical-academic partnership and fit with the local and broader strategic landscape.

Inevitably NROL will continue to evolve. The TIDieR checklist does allow for reporting on modifications. To date, the checklist has been primarily used for reporting interventions in trials (56, 57) and there are limited examples of its use for adapted interventions over time. This article documents current NROL delivery and captures its retrospective modifications. Going forward, transparent reporting of new iterations of NROL together with descriptions of their context should be undertaken to aid comparisons.

## Conclusion

A hybrid approach incorporating telerehabilitation, to complement in-person therapy, is required for a future-proof service that follows policy and guidelines. This comprehensive description of a regional NROL innovation gives an example of successful implementation within an existing healthcare system. It provides a platform for others to reduce duplication of effort and help facilitate the use of telerehabilitation in clinical practice. Adapted versions of NROL are expected when implementing in different contexts. Transparent reporting and continuous evaluation alongside NROL implementation are encouraged and will ensure maximal impact for neurorehabilitation delivery.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

## Availability of data/ resources

Digital copies of NROL materials are available on request by contacting Professor Louise Connell (laconnell{at}uclan.ac.uk).

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

### Funding

NROL was supported by a generous donation from the charity SameYou (Charity number 1170102). The funders had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.

## Footnotes

*   (sackerley{at}uclan.ac.uk)

*   (nwilson9{at}uclan.ac.uk)

*   (pboland2{at}uclan.ac.uk)

*   (rosemary.peel{at}mbht.nhs.uk

*   (laconnell{at}uclan.ac.uk).

*   Received February 16, 2023.
*   Revision received February 16, 2023.
*   Accepted February 18, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Lohse KR, Lang CE, Boyd LA. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2014;45(7):2053–8.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjQ1LzcvMjA1MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAyLzE4LzIwMjMuMDIuMTYuMjMyODYwMzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

2.  2.French B, Thomas LH, Leathley MJ, Sutton CJ, McAdam J, Forster A, et al. Repetitive Task Training for Improving Functional Ability After Stroke. Stroke. 2009;40(4):e98–e9.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjQwLzQvZTk4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDIvMTgvMjAyMy4wMi4xNi4yMzI4NjAzOC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

3.  3.Schneider EJ, Lannin NA, Ada L, Schmidt J. Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy. 2016;62(4):182–7.
    
    

4.  4.Kwakkel G, Van Peppen R, Wagenaar RC, Wood Dauphinee S, Richards C, Ashburn A, et al. Effects of Augmented Exercise Therapy Time After Stroke. Stroke. 2004;35(11):2529–39.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzNS8xMS8yNTI5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDIvMTgvMjAyMy4wMi4xNi4yMzI4NjAzOC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

5.  5.Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme. The Road to Recovery. The Ninth SSNAP Annual Report 2022 [Available from: [https://www.strokeaudit.org/Documents/National/Clinical/Apr2021Mar2022/Apr2021Mar2022-AnnualReport.aspx](https://www.strokeaudit.org/Documents/National/Clinical/Apr2021Mar2022/Apr2021Mar2022-AnnualReport.aspx).
    
    

6.  6.Cramer SC, Dodakian L, Le V, McKenzie A, See J, Augsburger R, et al. A Feasibility Study of Expanded Home-Based Telerehabilitation After Stroke. Front Neurol. 2020;11:611453.
    
    

7.  7.Laver KE, Adey-Wakeling Z, Crotty M, Lannin NA, George S, Sherrington C. Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;1(1):Cd010255.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F18%2F2023.02.16.23286038.atom) 

8.  8.Stroke Association. A New Era for Stroke 2016. Available from: [https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/anefs\_report\_web.pdf](https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/anefs_report_web.pdf).
    
    

9.  9.Parrott D, Ibarra S. Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Telemedicine Brain Injury Coping Skills (BICS) group intervention to traditional in-person BICS for Brain Injury Patients and Caregivers. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2021;102(10):e15.
    
    

10. 10.Khan F, Amatya B, Kesselring J, Galea M. Telerehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(4):CD010508.
    
    

11. 11.Rietdijk R, Power E, Attard M, Togher L. Acceptability of telehealth-delivered rehabilitation: Experiences and perspectives of people with traumatic brain injury and their carers. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2022;28(2):122–34.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F18%2F2023.02.16.23286038.atom) 

12. 12.Hargreaves DL,  D. Stroke, GIRFT Programme National Specialty Report 2022. Available from: [https://gmnisdn.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Stroke-GiRFT-report-Apr-22.pdf](https://gmnisdn.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Stroke-GiRFT-report-Apr-22.pdf))
    
    

13. 13.Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. National Evaluation of Remote Physiotherapy Services: the findings 2022 [Available from: [https://www.csp.org.uk/professional-clinical/professional-guidance/remote-consultations/national-evaluation-remote-0](https://www.csp.org.uk/professional-clinical/professional-guidance/remote-consultations/national-evaluation-remote-0).
    
    

14. 14.Ackerley S, Wilson N, Boland P, Reed J, Connell L. Implementation of neurological group-based telerehabilitation within existing healthcare: a mixed methods evaluation. BMC Health Services Research journal. Under review.
    
    

15. 15.Prvu Bettger J, Resnik LJ. Telerehabilitation in the Age of COVID-19: An Opportunity for Learning Health System Research. Phys Ther. 2020;100(11):1913–6.
    
    

16. 16.Wosik J, Fudim M, Cameron B, Gellad ZF, Cho A, Phinney D, et al. Telehealth transformation: COVID-19 and the rise of virtual care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2020;27(6):957–62.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jamia/ocaa067&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F18%2F2023.02.16.23286038.atom) 

17. 17.Taylor A, Caffery L, Gesesew H, King A,  Bassal A-r, Ford K, et al. How Australian Health Care Services Adapted to Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Telehealth Professionals. Frontiers in Public Health. 2021;9.
    
    

18. 18.Ross MH, Nelson M, Parravicini V, Weight M, Tyrrell R, Hartley N, et al. Staff perspectives on the key elements to successful rapid uptake of telerehabilitation in medium-sized public hospital physiotherapy departments. Physiotherapy Research International. 2022.
    
    

19. 19.Yang CL, Waterson S, Eng JJ. Implementation and Evaluation of the Virtual Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) for Individuals With Stroke During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond. Phys Ther. 2021;101(6).
    
    

20. 20.Beare B, Doogan CE, Douglass-Kirk P, Leff AP, Ward N. Neuro-Rehabilitation OnLine (N-ROL): description and evaluation of a group-based telerehabilitation programme for acquired brain injury. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 2021;92(12):1354.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiOTIvMTIvMTM1NCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAyLzE4LzIwMjMuMDIuMTYuMjMyODYwMzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

21. 21.Buckingham S, Anil K, Demain S, Gunn H, Jones RB, Kent B, et al. Telerehabilitation for people with physical disabilities and movement impairment: development and evaluation of an online toolkit for practitioners and patients. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2022:1–8.
    
    

22. 22.Royal College of Physicians. National Clinical Guideline for Stroke for the United Kingdom and Ireland.2022. Available from: [https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/62c3d8070eda8516a8ba9475/6380a7e6a9a3db745a8e8315\_2023%20National%20Clinical%20Guideline%20for%20Stroke%20consultation%20document.pdf](https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/62c3d8070eda8516a8ba9475/6380a7e6a9a3db745a8e8315_2023%20National%20Clinical%20Guideline%20for%20Stroke%20consultation%20document.pdf).
    
    

23. 23.Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348(mar07 3):g1687–g.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDgvbWFyMDdfMy9nMTY4NyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAyLzE4LzIwMjMuMDIuMTYuMjMyODYwMzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

24. 24.Rhon DI, Fritz JM, Kerns RD, McGeary DD, Coleman BC, Farrokhi S, et al. TIDieR-telehealth: precision in reporting of telehealth interventions used in clinical trials - unique considerations for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2022;22(1).
    
    

25. 25.Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science. 2022;17(1).
    
    

26. 26.Mace RA, Mattos MK, Vranceanu A-M. Older adults can use technology: why healthcare professionals must overcome ageism in digital health. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2022;12(12):1102–5.
    
    

27. 27. Tsai H-YS, Shillair R, Cotten SR. Social Support and “Playing Around”. Journal of Applied Gerontology. 2017;36(1):29–55.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0733464815609440&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26491029&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F18%2F2023.02.16.23286038.atom) 

28. 28.Doorley JD, Mace RA, Popok PJ, Grunberg VA, Ragnhildstveit A, Vranceanu AM. Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mind-Body Activity Program for Older Adults With Chronic Pain and Cognitive Decline: The Virtual “Active Brains” Study. Gerontologist. 2022;62(7):1082–94.
    
    

29. 29.Miller MJ, Pak SS, Keller DR, Barnes DE. Evaluation of Pragmatic Telehealth Physical Therapy Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Phys Ther. 2021;101(1).
    
    

30. 30.Aterman S, Ghahari S, Kessler D. Characteristics of peer-based interventions for individuals with neurological conditions: a scoping review. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2022:1–32.
    
    

31. 31.Hughes R, Fleming P, Henshall L. Peer support groups after acquired brain injury: a systematic review. Brain Injury. 2020;34(7):847–56.
    
    

32. 32.Clark E, Maccrosain A, Ward NS, Jones F. The key features and role of peer support within group self-management interventions for stroke? A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2020;42(3):307–16.
    
    

33. 33.Fleming V, Brownsett S, Krason A, Maegli MA, Coley-Fisher H, Ong Y-H, et al. Efficacy of spoken word comprehension therapy in patients with chronic aphasia: a cross-over randomised controlled trial with structural imaging. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2021;92(4):418–24.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI5Mi80LzQxOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAyLzE4LzIwMjMuMDIuMTYuMjMyODYwMzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

34. 34.Ward NS, Brander F, Kelly K. Intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke: outcomes from the Queen Square programme. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2019;90(5):498–506.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI5MC81LzQ5OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAyLzE4LzIwMjMuMDIuMTYuMjMyODYwMzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

35. 35.NHS England. National Stroke Service Model: Integrated Stroke Delivery Networks 2021. Available from: [https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/stroke-service-model-may-2021.pdf](https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/stroke-service-model-may-2021.pdf).
    
    

36. 36.Stroke Association. Shaping stroke research to rebuild lives 2021. Available from: [https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/research/stroke\_priority\_setting\_partnership\_full\_report.pdf](https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/research/stroke\_priority\_setting_partnership_full_report.pdf).
    
    

37. 37.EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-3L User Guide 2018 [Available from: [https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides](https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides).
    
    

38. 38.Riazi A, Aspden T, Jones F. Stroke Self-efficacy Questionnaire: a Rasch-refined measure of confidence post stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(5):406–12.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F18%2F2023.02.16.23286038.atom) 

39. 39.Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing Disability and Change on Individual Patients: A Report of a Patient Specific Measure. Physiotherapy Canada. 1995;47(4):258–63.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3138/ptc.47.4.258&link_type=DOI) 

40. 40.Lancashire Independent Economic Review. Deep Dive: Health, Wealth & Wellbeing 2021. Available from: [https://www.lancashireier.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/LIER\_Health\_Wealth\_and\_Wellbeing\_2021\_v1.pdf](https://www.lancashireier.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/LIER\_Health\_Wealth\_and_Wellbeing_2021_v1.pdf).
    
    

41. 41.Lancashire and South Cumbria Provider Collaborative. Our vision 2022 [16 February 2023]. Available from: [https://lscprovidercollaborative.nhs.uk/about-us/our-vision](https://lscprovidercollaborative.nhs.uk/about-us/our-vision)
    
    

42. 42.World Health A. Digital health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
    
    

43. 43.World Health Assembly. eHealth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
    
    

44. 44.NHS England and NHS Inprovement. 2022/23 priorities and operational planning guidance 2022. Available from: [https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20211223-B1160-2022-23-priorities-and-operational-planning-guidance-v3.2.pdf](https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20211223-B1160-2022-23-priorities-and-operational-planning-guidance-v3.2.pdf)
    
    

45. 45.SameYou. NROL 2022 [16 February 2023]. Available from: [https://www.sameyou.org/nrol](https://www.sameyou.org/nrol).
    
    

46. 46.NHS Health Education England. The Topol Review 2023 [16 February 2023]. Available from: [https://topol.hee.nhs.uk/the-topol-review/](https://topol.hee.nhs.uk/the-topol-review/)
    
    

47. 47.English C, Ceravolo MG, Dorsch S, Drummond A, Gandhi DB, Halliday Green J, et al. Telehealth for rehabilitation and recovery after stroke: State of the evidence and future directions. International Journal of Stroke. 2022;17(5):487–93.
    
    

48. 48.Haynes A, Brennan S, Redman S, Williamson A, Gallego G, Butow P. Figuring out fidelity: a worked example of the methods used to identify, critique and revise the essential elements of a contextualised intervention in health policy agencies. Implementation Science. 2015;11(1).
    
    

49. 49.Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Spreading and scaling up innovation and improvement. BMJ. 2019:l2068.
    
    

50. 50.Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations: 5th Edition. New York: Free Press; 2003.
    
    

51. 51.Gustafson DH, Sainfort F, Eichler M, Adams L, Bisognano M, Steudel H. Developing and Testing a Model to Predict Outcomes of Organizational Change. Health Services Research. 2003;38(2):751–76.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1475-6773.00143&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12785571&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F18%2F2023.02.16.23286038.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182793400016&link_type=ISI) 

52. 52.Bate P. The Health Foundation: Perspectives on context. Available from: [https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/PerspectivesOnContextBateContextIsEverything.pdf](https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/PerspectivesOnContextBateContextIsEverything.pdf).
    
    

53. 53.Hawe P. Lessons from Complex Interventions to Improve Health. Annual Review of Public Health. 2015;36(1):307–23.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114421&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25581153&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F18%2F2023.02.16.23286038.atom) 

54. 54.Standing C, Standing S, McDermott M-L, Gururajan R, Kiani Mavi R. The Paradoxes of Telehealth: a Review of the Literature 2000-2015. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 2018;35(1):90–101.
    
    

55. 55.Signal N, Martin T, Leys A, Maloney R, Bright F. Implementation of telerehabilitation in response to COVID-19: Lessons learnt from neurorehabilitation clinical practice and education. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy. 2020;48:117–26.
    
    

56. 56.Tume LN, Blackwood B, McAuley DF, Morris K, Peters MJ, Jordan J, et al. Using the TIDieR checklist to describe the intervention of the Sedation and Weaning in Children(SANDWICH) trial. Nursing in Critical Care. 2022.
    
    

57. 57.Carlsson H, Rosén B, Björkman A, Pessah-Rasmussen H, Brogårdh C. SENSory re-learning of the UPPer limb (SENSUPP) after stroke: development and description of a novel intervention using the TIDieR checklist. Trials. 2021;22(1).