Inter-facility transfer for patients with acute large vessel occlusion stroke receiving mechanical thrombectomy.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the preferred treatment for large vessel occlusion (LVO) ischemic stroke, and neurological outcome improves with earlier treatment. Patients with LVO frequently require inter-facility transfer to access MT but delays at transferring EDs may worsen neurological outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study to evaluate the association of time spent and transferring EDs with 90-day neurological outcomes among patients who were transferred from an outside ED to the Comprehensive Stroke Center and received MT. Time intervals at transferring EDs were examined descriptively, and multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to examine the association of time spent in the ED with 90-day neurologic outcome (modified Rankin Scale; good ≤2, poor ≥3). RESULTS: Among 111 patients transferred to a stroke center for MT between 2013 and 2017, the time between CT scan and the stroke center transfer request was 44 (IQR 27,65) minutes, or 47% of transferring ED total duration. Duration at the transferring ED was not significantly associated with 90-day outcome. Only NIH Stroke Scale at the time of arrival to the stroke center was associated with good 90-day neurological outcome (aOR 0.84, 95%CI 0.77, 0.92, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among LVO patients transferred for MT, the total time spent at transferring EDs was not associated with 90-day neurologic outcome in patients with LVO. As therapies and their associated effectiveness improves over time, future investigations should further characterize the time between CT and transfer request to identify targets for process improvement and clinical outcomes.

Implementation of a pilot electronic stroke outcome reporting system for emergency care providers.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) providers and clinicians find that feedback on acute stroke patients is rewarding, valuable to professional development, and helpful for practice improvement. However, feedback is rarely provided, particularly for patients with stroke. Here we describe the implementation of an electronic stroke outcome reporting tool for providing feedback to ED providers. METHODS: We sought to evaluate the implementation of an electronic stroke outcome reporting tool at 3 Nashville hospitals. ED staff and providers voluntarily enrolled to receive de-identified reports of clinical (e.g., survival) and operational (e.g., timeliness) outcomes of patients with acute ischemic stroke and were offered free continuing education (CE) credits for following up on patients. We evaluated the implementation of this system through a descriptive evaluation of the feasibility, use of the system and CE, and perceived usefulness of the reports. RESULTS: We enrolled 232 ED providers, including 107 (46%) nurses and 57 (25%) attending physicians and transmitted 55 stroke outcome reports. Reports took 30-60 min to compile and were viewed by a mean of 2.6 (SD 1.5) registered providers; 97.1% found the reports useful and 36.2% reported likelihood to change practice. Continuing education credits were initiated or claimed by 22 providers. CONCLUSIONS: An electronic stroke outcome reporting tool was used and liked by ED staff and providers but the time to compile the reports is the major challenge to scalability. Future research should address the effectiveness of this reporting tool as a source of provider education and its impact on clinical and operational outcomes.