Background: Clinical practice guidelines and best practice statements aim to promote the application of evidence into clinical practice. However, implementing guidelines into practice is challenging, resulting in persistent evidence-practice gaps. Identifying and addressing these gaps is fundamental to improving care and outcomes for people with aphasia.

Aims: The aim of this study is for clinicians, researchers, and people with lived experience of aphasia to collaborate to identify, co-design and deliver a tailored intervention to address evidence-practice gaps in acute aphasia care.

Methods: This is a mixed-methods study modelled on the seven steps of the Knowledge to Action Framework. The medical records of 40 consecutive patients admitted with stroke were audited against operationalised aphasia evidence statements to identify evidence-practice gaps. Over a series of workshops, the evidence-practice gaps were prioritised by participants (clinicians and people with lived experience) using the nominal group technique. The top priority evidence-practice gap is being specified further using the AACTT Framework. The next step is to co-design, implement and evaluate an intervention to address the top-priority evidence-practice gap.

Results: To date, audit results have been mapped against six categories of evidence statements related to: (1) identification of aphasia; (2) communication access and training; (3) involvement of patient and family; (4) therapy; (5) information and education; and (5) planning for discharge. Clinicians (n=4) and people with lived experience (n=3) have participated in four workshops. Participants have rated identification of aphasia, involvement of patient and family, and communication access and training as the three most important evidence-practice gaps. Screening patients for aphasia post-stroke was voted as the top-priority to address first in the acute setting. A description of the target behaviour and co-designed intervention will be presented.

Conclusion: A flexible research approach is required to meaningfully engage with participants and to authentically co-design practice-change in the clinical setting.

1. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines for aphasia, evidence-practice gaps persist in acute aphasia care.
2. In this study, screening patients for aphasia post-stroke was voted as the top-priority evidence-practice gap to target first in the acute setting.
3. A flexible research approach is required to meaningfully engage with participants and to authentically co-design practice-change in the clinical setting.