The structured ambulatory post-stroke care program for outpatient aftercare in patients with ischaemic stroke in Germany (SANO): an open-label, cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ischaemic stroke are at risk of recurrent stroke. In this study, we aimed to compare the effect of a structured ambulatory post-stroke care programme versus usual care on recurrent vascular events and death and control of cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: We did a prospective, open-label, cluster-randomised controlled trial (SANO) at stroke centres in regions of Germany. A cluster was defined as a region in which acute stroke care is provided by a participating stroke centre. Patients were eligible for participation if they were aged 18 years or older, had no severe disabilities before the index stroke (modified Rankin scale 0-1), had at least one modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, and presented within 14 days of symptom onset of their first ischaemic stroke. The participating regions were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention and control group (usual care) by the statistician using block randomisation (block sizes of six), stratified by rural and urban regions. In intervention regions, a cross-sectoral multidisciplinary network was established to provide a 1-year organisational and patient-centred intervention. Due to the type of intervention, masking of participants and study physicians was not possible. Endpoint adjudication was performed by an independent endpoint adjudication committee who were masked to cluster allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause death within 12 months after baseline assessment, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all patients who did not withdraw consent and completed the primary endpoint assessment at 12 months. This study was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00015322. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2019 and Dec 22, 2020, 36 clusters were assessed for eligibility, of which 30 were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=15 clusters) or control group (n=15 clusters). No clusters dropped out of the study. 1203 (86%) of 1396 enrolled patients in the intervention group and 1283 (92%) of 1395 enrolled patients in the control group were included in the mITT population. The primary endpoint was confirmed in 64 (5·3%) of 1203 patients in the intervention group and 80 (6·2%) of 1283 patients in the control group (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·80 [95% CI 0·49-1·30]; adjusted OR [aOR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·54-1·67]). All-cause deaths occurred in 31 (2·4%) of 1203 patients in the intervention group and 12 (1·0%) of 1283 patients in the control group. The incidence of serious adverse events was higher in the intervention group (266 [23·1%] of 1151) than the control group (106 [9·2%] of 1152). Falls (134 [11·4%] of 1203 patients in the intervention group; 39 [3·3%] of 1152 patients in the control group), hypertensive crisis (55 [4·7%]; 34 [2·8%]), and diagnosis of depression (51 [4·3%]; 13 [1·1%]) were the most frequent adverse events in both groups. No differences were identified in the rate of readmission to hospital between groups. INTERPRETATION: No differences were identified between patients with ischaemic stroke in the intervention group and control group with regard to the incidence of vascular events 1 year after baseline assessment, despite positive effects with regard to the control of some cardiovascular risk factors. Longer-term effects and other potentially favourable effects on stroke-related sequelae and quality of life require further evaluation. FUNDING: Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee.

Consistency as a Data Quality Measure for German Corona Consensus Items Mapped from National Pandemic Cohort Network Data Collections.

BACKGROUND: As a national effort to better understand the current pandemic, three cohorts collect sociodemographic and clinical data from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients from different target populations within the German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON). Furthermore, the German Corona Consensus Dataset (GECCO) was introduced as a harmonized basic information model for COVID-19 patients in clinical routine. To compare the cohort data with other GECCO-based studies, data items are mapped to GECCO. As mapping from one information model to another is complex, an additional consistency evaluation of the mapped items is recommended to detect possible mapping issues or source data inconsistencies. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this work is to assure high consistency of research data mapped to the GECCO data model. In particular, it aims at identifying contradictions within interdependent GECCO data items of the German national COVID-19 cohorts to allow investigation of possible reasons for identified contradictions. We furthermore aim at enabling other researchers to easily perform data quality evaluation on GECCO-based datasets and adapt to similar data models. METHODS: All suitable data items from each of the three NAPKON cohorts are mapped to the GECCO items. A consistency assessment tool (dqGecco) is implemented, following the design of an existing quality assessment framework, retaining their-defined consistency taxonomies, including logical and empirical contradictions. Results of the assessment are verified independently on the primary data source. RESULTS: Our consistency assessment tool helped in correcting the mapping procedure and reveals remaining contradictory value combinations within COVID-19 symptoms, vital signs, and COVID-19 severity. Consistency rates differ between the different indicators and cohorts ranging from 95.84% up to 100%. CONCLUSION: An efficient and portable tool capable of discovering inconsistencies in the COVID-19 domain has been developed and applied to three different cohorts. As the GECCO dataset is employed in different platforms and studies, the tool can be directly applied there or adapted to similar information models.

The German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON): rationale, study design and baseline characteristics.

The German government initiated the Network University Medicine (NUM) in early 2020 to improve national research activities on the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. To this end, 36 German Academic Medical Centers started to collaborate on 13 projects, with the largest being the National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON). The NAPKON's goal is creating the most comprehensive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cohort in Germany. Within NAPKON, adult and pediatric patients are observed in three complementary cohort platforms (Cross-Sectoral, High-Resolution and Population-Based) from the initial infection until up to three years of follow-up. Study procedures comprise comprehensive clinical and imaging diagnostics, quality-of-life assessment, patient-reported outcomes and biosampling. The three cohort platforms build on four infrastructure core units (Interaction, Biosampling, Epidemiology, and Integration) and collaborations with NUM projects. Key components of the data capture, regulatory, and data privacy are based on the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research. By April 01, 2022, 34 university and 40 non-university hospitals have enrolled 5298 patients with local data quality reviews performed on 4727 (89%). 47% were female, the median age was 52 (IQR 36-62-) and 50 pediatric cases were included. 44% of patients were hospitalized, 15% admitted to an intensive care unit, and 12% of patients deceased while enrolled. 8845 visits with biosampling in 4349 patients were conducted by April 03, 2022. In this overview article, we summarize NAPKON's design, relevant milestones including first study population characteristics, and outline the potential of NAPKON for German and international research activities.Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04768998 . https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04747366 . https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04679584.

[Positive association between successful rehabilitation and patient hospital ratings: Experience reports of patients in rehabilitation on a hospital rating and review site]. / Klinik-Weiterempfehlung bei Reha-Erfolg: Erfahrungsberichte von Rehabilitanden auf einer Klinik-Bewertungsplattform.

INTRODUCTION: Feedback from patients about aspects of rehabilitation services is increasingly provided online, for example, on specialized hospital comparison websites. Therefore, we examined which kind of online statements from rehabilitation patients published on the leading hospital comparison website "Klinikbewertungen.de" (KB) is associated with a positive recommendation of a rehabilitation clinic and which negative aspects are associated with a non-recommendation. METHODS: For eight indication groups stratified online statements of rehabilitants at KB were evaluated qualitatively using content analysis. The relationship between positive (negative) statements and the (non-) recommendation was examined. RESULTS: Content analysis of 911 experience reports revealed 20 categories. Most often, it was the "rehabilitation success" perceived by rehabilitation patients that was significantly associated with a recommendation or a non-recommendation of a hospital, and in five quality assurance (QA) comparison groups the category "catering" was associated with a positive or negative recommendation. In all QS comparison groups, there was an association with at least one of the following process-oriented rehabilitation categories: "rehabilitation measures", "rehabilitation plan and rehabilitation goals" and / or "diagnosis to discharge". DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Patient experiences with the perceived "rehabilitation success" and with the central processes of rehabilitation are particularly important for the recommendation or non-recommendation of a hospital for patients in all eight indication groups. On the basis of these results, rehabilitation hospitals can specifically identify the aspects of care that are important when patients recommend a hospital for rehabilitation. Online narratives of patients provide additional insights into the reasons for patients' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their rehabilitation. These narratives are available to potential rehabilitation patients as a low-threshold source of information and decision-making aid.