Abstract only Background: The Florida Stroke Act set criteria for comprehensive stroke centers (CSC). Hospitals could be certified by a national agency (The Joint Commission (TJC), Det Norske Veritas ...(DNV), Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP)) or could self-attest as fulfilling CSC criteria. This study aimed to evaluate whether nationally certified (NC) and self-attested hospitals (SA) have similar quality of care in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods: The study population included AIS cases from 37 CSCs (74% of FL CSCs) in the FL-Stroke Registry, a multi-hospital registry using Get With the Guidelines-Stroke data from Jan 2013-Dec 2018. Hospital and patient level characteristics and stroke metrics were evaluated using unadjusted and adjusted (age, sex, race and NIH) analyses. Results: 13 NC-CSCs with 32,061 AIS cases and 24 SA-CSCs with 46,363 AIS cases were included. NCs were larger, with younger patients (71 (60-81) vs 72 (61-82)) and more severe strokes (median NIH; 5 vs 4, NIH ≥ 16; 15.4 vs 11.9% p <.0001). Overall IV tPA utilization (15.4% vs 13.9% p <.0001) and EVT treatment (9.8% vs 7.3% p <.0001) were better in NC CSCs. Median door to CT (23 min (11-76) vs 30 (12-75) p <.001) and door to needle time (38 min (27-51) vs 43(30-56) p <.001) were faster in NC CSCs. In adjusted analysis those arriving to NC by 3 hrs were more likely to get tPA in extended 3-4.5-hour window (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10, 2.47 p =.01). Conclusion: Among FL-Stroke Registry CSCs, AIS performance and treatment measures are superior in NC CSC when compared to SA CSCs. These findings have crucial implications for stroke systems of care in Florida and supported recent change in legislation regarding CSC center certification.
Abstract only Background: Patients with minor ischemic stroke were largely excluded from the randomized trials of endovascular therapy (EVT) in stroke. In the Florida-Puerto Rico Registry we sought ...to determine the utilization of EVT in this population. Methods: From January 2010 to March 2017, 57,750 acute ischemic stroke patients within 24 hours of symptom onset were prospectively included from 88 sites in four Florida regions (south, west central, north and panhandle, east central) and Puerto Rico. Differences between minor (NIHSS ≤ 5) and moderate/severe (NIHSS>5) stroke patients who received EVT were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations. Results: Among 2,845 EVT patients (50% women, mean age ±SD 71±14 years), 347 (12%) had NIHSS ≤ 5. As compared to NIHSS>5, minor stroke patients were younger (mean age 67 vs. 71, p<0.01), more men (58% vs. 49%, p=0.01) more privately insured (47% vs. 35%, p<0.01), having more HTN (69% vs. 63%, p=0.03) and prior strokes (25% vs. 20%, p=0.02) but less atrial fibrillation (25% vs. 38%, p<0.01). Minor stroke EVT patients arrived later to the hospital (median 128 vs. 102 min, p=0.02) and during working hours (51% vs. 46%,p=0.09). They were less likely to receive IV tPA (29% vs. 42%, p<0.01), had a longer door to puncture time (median 192 vs. 128 min, p<0.01). In multivariable analysis, young age (OR=1.02, 95%CI 1.01-1.03), early arrival (OR=1.64, 95% CI 1.15-2.33) and FL regions (south vs. west central) (OR=2.67, 95% CI 1.07-6.62) were independently associated with EVT in minor stroke. Symptomatic ICH occurred in 4.6% of minor stroke EVT patients and 6.4% in those with NIHSS>5. Majority of minor stroke patients who received EVT were discharged home or to rehab (75%) while 53% of those with NIHSS>5. Conclusions: More than 1 in 10 cases that received EVT had mild neurological symptoms. Many factors including hospital expertise and time of presentation affect the use of this treatment. Further study of EVT in minor stroke is warranted.
Background
Racial‐ethnic disparities in acute stroke care can contribute to inequality in stroke outcomes. We examined race‐ethnic disparities in acute stroke performance metrics in a voluntary ...stroke registry among Florida and Puerto Rico Get With the Guidelines‐Stroke hospitals.
Methods and Results
Seventy‐five sites in the Florida Puerto Rico Stroke Registry (66 Florida and 9 Puerto Rico) recorded 58 864 ischemic stroke cases (2010–2014). Logistic regression models examined racial‐ethnic differences in acute stroke performance measures and defect‐free care (intravenous tissue plasminogen activator treatment, in‐hospital antithrombotic therapy, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, discharge antithrombotic therapy, appropriate anticoagulation therapy, statin use, smoking cessation counseling) and temporal trends. Among ischemic stroke cases, 63% were non‐Hispanic white (NHW), 18% were non‐Hispanic black (NHB), 14% were Hispanic living in Florida, and 6% were Hispanic living in Puerto Rico. NHW patients were the oldest, followed by Hispanics, and NHBs. Defect‐free care was greatest among NHBs (81%), followed by NHWs (79%) and Florida Hispanics (79%), then Puerto Rico Hispanics (57%) (P<0.0001). Puerto Rico Hispanics were less likely than Florida whites to meet any stroke care performance metric other than anticoagulation. Defect‐free care improved for all groups during 2010–2014, but the disparity in Puerto Rico persisted (2010: NHWs=63%, NHBs=65%, Florida Hispanics=59%, Puerto Rico Hispanics=31%; 2014: NHWs=93%, NHBs=94%, Florida Hispanics=94%, Puerto Rico Hispanics=63%).
Conclusions
Racial‐ethnic/geographic disparities were observed for acute stroke care performance metrics. Adoption of a quality improvement program improved stroke care from 2010 to 2014 in Puerto Rico and all Florida racial‐ethnic groups. However, stroke care quality delivered in Puerto Rico is lower than in Florida. Sustained support of evidence‐based acute stroke quality improvement programs is required to improve stroke care and minimize racial‐ethnic disparities, particularly in resource‐strained Puerto Rico.
The American Stroke Association (ASA) assembled a multidisciplinary group of experts to develop recommendations regarding the potential effectiveness of establishing an identification program for ...stroke centers and systems. "Identification" refers to the full spectrum of models for assessing and recognizing standards of quality care (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation). A primary consideration is whether stroke center identification might improve patient outcomes.
In February 2001, ASA, with the support of the Stroke Council's Executive Committee, decided to embark on an evaluation of the potential impact of stroke center identification. HealthPolicy R&D was selected to prepare a comprehensive report. The investigators reported on models outside the area of stroke, ongoing initiatives within the stroke community (such as Operation Stroke), and state and federal activities designed to improve care for stroke patients. The investigators also conducted interviews with thought leaders in the stroke community, representing a diverse sampling of specialties and affiliations. In October 2001, the Advisory Working Group on Stroke Center Identification developed its consensus recommendations. This group included recognized experts in neurology, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, neurological surgery, neurointensive care, vascular disease, and stroke program planning.
There are a variety of existing identification programs, generally falling within 1 of 4 categories (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation) along a continuum with respect to intensity and scope of review and consumption of resources. Ten programs were evaluated, including Peer Review Organizations, trauma centers, and new efforts by the National Committee on Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations to identify providers and disease management programs. The largest body of literature on clinical outcomes associated with identification programs involves trauma centers. Most studies support that trauma centers and systems lead to improved mortality rates and patient outcomes. The Advisory Working Group felt that comparison to the trauma model was most relevant given the need for urgent evaluation and treatment of stroke. The literature in other areas generally supports the positive impact of identification programs, although patient outcomes data have less often been published. In the leadership interviews, participants generally expressed strong support for pursuing some form of voluntary identification program, although concerns were raised that this effort could meet with some resistance.
Identification of stroke centers and stroke systems competencies is in the best interest of stroke patients in the United States, and ASA should support the development and implementation of such processes. The purpose of a stroke center/systems identification program is to increase the capacity for all hospitals to treat stroke patients according to standards of care, recognizing that levels of involvement will vary according to the resources of hospitals and systems.
PDF