Why, for once, is the UK leading the way in implementing evidence?
- Alec Fraser1,
- Anthony Rudd2,3
- 1Department of Management, Kings College, University of London, London, UK
- 2Kings College, University London, London, UK
- 3Stroke Unit, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK
- Correspondence to Professor Anthony Rudd, Stroke Unit, St Thomas’ Hospital, Lambeth Palace Rd, London SE1 7EH, UK; Anthony.rudd{at}kcl.ac.uk
- Received 7 September 2012
- Accepted 7 September 2012
- Published Online First 8 November 2012
One of the major factors influencing the quality of healthcare is the responsiveness of clinicians to new evidence and their willingness to implement findings into routine clinical practice in a timely way.1 The factors that affect the efficiency of getting evidence into practice are complex; a good example of this is illustrated in the paper by Ankolekar et al.2 The Clots in Legs or sTockings after Stroke (CLOTS) 1 trial definitively showed that compression stockings after stroke did not prevent venous thromboembolism. The trial was well conducted and adequately powered for the primary outcome, so there was little room for debate about the validity of the result. Running concurrently with the CLOTS 1 trial and continuing beyond it …
