Community socioeconomic status and prehospital times in acute stroke and transient ischemic attack: do poorer patients have longer delays from 911 call to the emergency department?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Timely access to medical treatment is critical for patients with acute stroke because acute therapies must be given very quickly after symptom onset. We examined the effect of socioeconomic status on prehospital delays in stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients within a large, biracial population. METHODS: By screening all local hospital ICD-9 codes 430 to 436, all stroke and TIA patients were identified during the calendar year of 1999. Cases must have used emergency medical services (EMS), lived at home, had their stroke at home, and had documented times of the 911 call and arrival to the emergency department. Socioeconomic status was estimated using economic data regarding the geocoded home residence census tract. RESULTS: Only 38% of stroke and TIA patients used EMS. There were 978 cases of stroke and TIA included in this analysis. The mean times were call to arrival on scene 6.5 minutes, on-scene time 14.1 minutes, and transport time 13.1 minutes. Lower community socioeconomic status was associated with all 3 EMS time intervals; however, all time differences were small: the largest difference was 5 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Within our population, living in a poorer area does not appear to delay access to acute care for stroke in a clinically significant way. We did find small, statistically significant delays in prehospital times that were associated with poorer communities, black race, and increasing age. However, delays related to public recognition of stroke symptoms, and limited use of 911, are likely much more important than these small delays that occur with EMS systems.

A description of Canadian and United States physician reimbursement for thrombolytic therapy administration in acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute ischemic stroke patients are infrequently treated with rtPA, despite its proven effectiveness. Poor physician reimbursement for acute stroke care is one possible explanation for the low frequency of use. We describe the physician reimbursement for thrombolytic therapy for the stroke team physicians serving the Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky region (GCNK), and the Alberta region. METHODS: GCNK: billing logs were accessed for the study period of 7/01-12/02, and cross-matched to stroke call logs. University of Calgary (UC): treatment records of a single physician were reviewed from 4/02-3/04. A telephone survey of Canadian provinces was conducted regarding billing practices. RESULTS: GCNK: During the study period, 151 patients received rtPA. For treated pts. the average time spent was 2.6 hours, and average reimbursement received was 472 dollars (of those with insurance). The highest reimbursement was received by billing critical care codes. Reimbursement for critical care was similar to or lower than common office procedures for neurologists. UC: during the study period, 131 patients received rtPA. Average reimbursement for rtPA treated patients was 340 dollars US, not including on-call payments. Survey across Canada revealed many provinces with weekend/after hour premium stipends and on-call stipends. CONCLUSIONS: Physician reimbursement for the evaluation and treatment of acute stroke, when compared with other diagnoses commonly treated by neurologists, is relatively low in both the U.S. and Canada. Health policy decision-makers in the US and Canada should be made aware of the importance of providing a more balanced plan to provide medical care to stroke patients.

Executive summary of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke conference on Emergency Neurologic Clinical Trials Network.

On March 17 and 18, 2004, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke sponsored a conference to explore the advisability of establishing a multicenter network designed to perform clinical trials in emergency neurologic conditions. The Emergency Neurology Clinical Trials Network concept was discussed by 25 clinicians and scientists from multiple disciplines. The goal was to improve the overall functional outcome for patients with acute neurologic emergencies. The participants discussed various aspects necessary in evaluating the potential of such a network, including the organization structure, funding, cost-effectiveness, and clinical conditions to be studied. A neurologic emergencies network that is not disease specific would open opportunities for clinical research that would facilitate rapid effective treatment of emergency conditions and lead to improved patient outcomes. In addition, the cost savings realized through economies of scale of such a network would allow more research to be performed at a lower cost.

Supplemental oxygen use in ischemic stroke patients: does utilization correspond to need for oxygen therapy?

BACKGROUND: In 1994, the American Heart Association Stroke Council concluded that there were no data to support the routine use of supplemental oxygen in patients who had a stroke. More recently, supplemental oxygen has been suggested to be potentially detrimental. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of oxygen use in ischemic stroke patients and whether patients receiving oxygen had indications for its use. METHODS: A literature search was performed to generate a comprehensive list of explicit criteria for supplemental oxygen use. When the literature disagreed, the criteria were included in the list to overestimate rather than underestimate the justification for oxygen use. A retrospective chart review of consecutive, nonintubated, ischemic stroke patients admitted to a university hospital was performed. Statistical tests and logistic regression models were constructed to identify the presence of unjustified oxygen use within the sample. Hospital charges were used to quantify opportunities for resource conservation. RESULTS: A total of 167 patient charts were reviewed yielding a total of 600 inpatient days abstracted. One hundred two patients (61.1%) received oxygen during some portion of their hospitalization. Of the 322 days that patients received oxygen, 147 (45.6%) met at least 1 criterion for oxygen use. Of the 278 days that patients did not receive oxygen, 69 (24.8%) met at least 1 of the criteria for oxygen use. There were 384 days for which no criteria were met. Of these, a patient still received oxygen 45.6% of the time (175 days). Factors associated with oxygen use included the presence of at least 1 justifying criteria as well as increasing age and male sex. Withholding oxygen from those not medically justified by the criteria could produce resource savings of roughly 45%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a literature-based list of criteria for supplemental oxygen use, only 45.6% of days of oxygen use were justified in our ischemic stroke population. This study demonstrates that oxygen therapy is commonly given to ischemic stroke patients without clear indication, and opportunities exist for substantial resource conservation.

Recommendations for improving the quality of care through stroke centers and systems: an examination of stroke center identification options: multidisciplinary consensus recommendations from the Advisory Working Group on Stroke Center Identification Options of the American Stroke Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.