Variation in US acute ischemic stroke treatment by hospital regions: limited endovascular access despite evidence.

BACKGROUND: Although national organizations recognize the importance of regionalized acute ischemic stroke (AIS) care, data informing expansion are sparse. We assessed real-world regional variation in emergent AIS treatment, including growth in revascularization therapies and stroke center certification. We hypothesized that we would observe overall growth in revascularization therapy utilization, but observed differences would vary greatly regionally. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was carried out of de-identified national inpatient Medicare Fee-for-Service datasets from 2016 to 2019. We identified AIS admissions and treatment with thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy (ET) with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We grouped hospitals in Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare Hospital Referral Regions (HRR) and calculated hospital, demographic, and acute stroke treatment characteristics for each HRR. We calculated the percent of hospitals with stroke certification and AIS cases treated with thrombolysis or ET per HRR. RESULTS: There were 957 958 AIS admissions. Relative mean (SD) growth in percent of AIS admissions receiving revascularization therapy per HRR from 2016 to 2019 was 13.4 (31.7)% (IQR -6.1-31.7%) for thrombolysis and 28.0 (72.0)% (IQR 0-56.0%) for ET. The proportion of HRRs with decreased or no difference in ET utilization was 38.9% and the proportion of HRRs with decreased or no difference in thrombolysis utilization was 32.7%. Mean (SD) stroke center certification proportion across HRRs was 45.3 (31.5)% and this varied widely (IQR 18.3-73.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall growth in AIS treatment has been modest and, within HRRs, growth in AIS treatment and the proportion of centers with stroke certification varies dramatically.

Leveraging technology to address unhealthy drug use in primary care: Effectiveness of the Substance use Screening and Intervention Tool (SUSIT).

Background: Screening for unhealthy drug use is now recommended for adult primary care patients, but primary care providers (PCPs) generally lack the time and knowledge required to screen and deliver an intervention during the medical visit. To address these barriers, we developed a tablet computer-based 'Substance Use Screening and Intervention Tool (SUSIT)'. Using the SUSIT, patients self-administer screening questionnaires prior to the medical visit, and results are presented to the PCP at the point of care, paired with clinical decision support (CDS) that guides them in providing a brief intervention (BI) for unhealthy drug use. Methods: PCPs and their patients with moderate-risk drug use were recruited from primary care and HIV clinics. A pre-post design compared a control 'screening only' (SO) period to an intervention 'SUSIT' period. Unique patients were enrolled in each period. In both conditions, patients completed screening and identified their drug of most concern (DOMC) before the visit, and completed a questionnaire about BI delivery by the PCP after the visit. In the SUSIT condition only, PCPs received the tablet with the patient's screening results and CDS. Multilevel models with random intercepts and patients nested within PCPs examined the effect of the SUSIT intervention on PCP delivery of BI. Results: 20 PCPs and 79 patients (42 SO, 37 SUSIT) participated. Most patients had moderate-risk marijuana use (92.4%), and selected marijuana as the DOMC (68.4%). Moderate-risk use of drugs other than marijuana included cocaine (15.2%), hallucinogens (12.7%), and sedatives (12.7%). Compared to the SO condition, patients in SUSIT had higher odds of receiving any BI for drug use, with an adjusted odds ratio of 11.59 (95% confidence interval: 3.39, 39.25), and received more elements of BI for drug use. Conclusions: The SUSIT significantly increased delivery of BI for drug use by PCPs during routine primary care encounters.