TY - JOUR T1 - Current practice and challenges in screening for visual perception deficits after stroke: a qualitative study JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/19013243 SP - 19013243 AU - Kathleen Vancleef AU - Michael J Colwell AU - Olivia Hewitt AU - Nele Demeyere Y1 - 2019/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/29/19013243.abstract N2 - AIM We aimed to document current clinical practice and needs in screening for visual perception problems after stroke to inform development of new screening tools.METHODS We interviewed 25 health care professionals (12 occupational therapists, 13 orthoptists) from 16 organisations in England. Interviews were transcribed and coded in NVivo Software. Data were thematically analysed using the Value Proposition Canvas, a model which establishes what people want to achieve, the challenges they face and what facilitates their jobs.RESULTS Participants’ understanding of visual perception varied and often included sensory and cognitive deficits. Occupational therapists commonly screened for visual field deficits and hemispatial neglect, while other aspects of visual cognition were rarely assessed. They decided on referrals to orthoptists for further assessment. Screening generally occurred during functional assessments and/or with in-house developed tools. Challenges to practice were: lack of time, lack of training, environmental and stroke survivor factors (e.g. aphasia), insufficient continuation of care, and test characteristics (e.g. not evidence-based). Facilitators to practice were: quick and practical tools, experienced staff or tools with minimal training requirements, a streamlined care pathway between a stroke unit and eye hospital supported by occupational therapists and orthoptists.CONCLUSION Screening employs non-standardised assessments and rarely covers visual perceptual deficits in higher order perception. Our service evaluation demonstrates the need for a standardised visual perception screen, which should ideally be 15 minutes or less, be portable, and require minimal equipment. The screen should be suitable for bedside testing in noisy environments, inclusive for participants with aphasia and evidence-based.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Stroke Association [grant number TSA PDF 2017/03, TSA LECT 2015/02].Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesRaw data cannot be share to ensure anonymity of participants. ER -