Geographic Access to Stroke Care Services in Rural Communities in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Optimal stroke care requires access to resources such as neuroimaging, acute revascularization, rehabilitation, and stroke prevention services, which may not be available in rural areas. We aimed to determine geographic access to stroke care for residents of rural communities in the province of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We used the Ontario Road Network File database linked with the 2016 Ontario Acute Stroke Care Resource Inventory to estimate the proportion of people in rural communities, defined as those with a population size <10,000, who were within 30, 60, and 240 minutes of travel time by car from stroke care services, including brain imaging, thrombolysis treatment centers, stroke units, stroke prevention clinics, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and endovascular treatment centers. RESULTS: Of the 1,496,262 people residing in rural communities, the majority resided within 60 minutes of driving time to a center with computed tomography (85%), thrombolysis (81%), a stroke unit (68%), a stroke prevention clinic (74%), or inpatient rehabilitation (77.0%), but a much lower proportion (32%) were within 60 minutes of driving time to a center capable of providing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). CONCLUSIONS: Most rural Ontario residents have appropriate geographic access to stroke services, with the exception of EVT. This information may be useful for jurisdictions seeking to optimize the regional organization of stroke care services.

Home Virtual Visits for Outpatient Follow-Up Stroke Care: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Timely, in-person access to health care is a challenge for people living with conditions such as stroke that result in frailty, loss of independence, restrictions in driving and mobility, and physical and cognitive decline. In Southeastern Ontario, access is further complicated by rurality and the long travel distances to visit physician clinics. There is a need to make health care more accessible and convenient. Home virtual visits (electronic visits, eVisits) can conveniently connect physicians to patients. Physicians use a secure personal videoconferencing tool to connect to patients in their homes. Patients use their device of choice (smartphone, tablet, laptop, or desktop) for the visit. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and logistics of implementing eVisits in a stroke prevention clinic for seniors. METHODS: A 6-month eVisit pilot study was initiated in the Kingston Health Sciences Centre stroke prevention clinic in August 2018. eVisits were used only for follow-up patient encounters. An integrated evaluation was used to test the impact of the program on clinic workflow and patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by telephone interviews, using a brief questionnaire. Access and patient satisfaction metrics were compared with concurrent standard of care (patients' prior personal experience with in-person visits). Values are presented as median (interquartile range). RESULTS: There were 75 subjects in the pilot. The patients were aged 65 (56-73.5) years, and 39% (29/75) resided in rural areas. There was a shorter wait for an appointment by eVisit versus in-person (mean 59.98 [SD 48.36] days vs mean 78.36 [SD 50.54] days; P<.001). The eVisit was also shorter, taking on an average of only 10 min to deliver follow-up care with a high degree of patient satisfaction versus 90 (60-112) min for in-person care. The total time saved by patients per eVisit was 80 (50-102) min, 44 (21-69) min of which was travel time. Travel distance avoided by the patients was 30.1 km (11.2-82.2). The estimated total out-of-pocket cost savings for patients per eVisit was Can $52.83 (31.26-94.53). The estimated savings (opportunity cost for in-person outpatient care) for our eVisit pilot project was Can $23,832-$28,584. The patient satisfaction with eVisits was very good compared with their prior personal experience with in-person outpatient care. CONCLUSIONS: The eVisit program was well received by patients, deemed to be safe by physicians, and avoided unnecessary patient travel and expense. It also has the potential to reduce health care costs. We plan to scale the project within the department and the institution.

Impact of Expanding the Prehospital Stroke Bypass Time Window in a Large Geographic Region.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Ontario Acute Stroke Medical Redirect Paramedic Protocol (ASMRPP) was revised to allow paramedics to bypass to designated stroke centers if total transport time would be <2 hours and total time from symptom onset <3.5 hours. We sought to evaluate the impact and safety of implementing the Revised ASMRPP. METHODS: We conducted a 12-month implementation study involving prehospital patients presenting with possible stroke symptoms. A total of 1317 basic and advanced life support paramedics, of 9 land services in 10 rural counties and 5 cities, used the Revised ASMRPP to take appropriate patients directly to 6 designated stroke centers. RESULTS: We enrolled 1277 patients with 98.8% paramedic compliance in form completion. Of these, 755 (61.2%) met the redirect criteria and had these characteristics: mean age 72.1 (range 16-101), male 51.1%, mean time scene to hospital 16.7 minutes (range 0-92). Paramedics demonstrated excellent interobserver agreement (κ, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96) and 97.9% accuracy in interpretation of the Revised ASMRPP. Prehospital adverse events occurred in 14.7% of patients, but few were life-threatening. Overall, 71.4% of 755 cases had a stroke code activated at the hospital and 23.2% received thrombolysis. For the 189 potential stroke patients picked up in 1 city, the ASMRPP classified thrombolysis administration with sensitivity 100% and specificity 37.3% and a final diagnosis of stroke, with sensitivity 86.1% and specificity 41.9%. CONCLUSIONS: In a large urban-rural area with 9 paramedic services, we demonstrated accurate, safe, and effective implementation of the Revised ASMRPP. These revisions will allow more patients with stroke to benefit from early treatment.

Enhancing community-based rehabilitation for stroke survivors: creating a discharge link.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Intensive poststroke rehabilitation is critical to maximizing outcomes, improving inpatient flow, and decreasing long-term costs. This regional initiative investigated the impact of improving access to timely intensive home-based stroke rehabilitation follow-up care on hospital length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates. The enhanced service was made available across the region's rural geography to new stroke survivors transitioning home who were unable to access outpatient care. METHODS: All new stroke survivors with ongoing rehabilitation needs being discharged from the hospital and eligible for home care received timely enhanced intensity of home-based rehabilitation services from existing community rehabilitation providers for 2 months after discharge. Five hundred twenty-four stroke survivors received this service over a 3-year period. The service priority rating was increased to reduce wait times to less than 5 days. Collaborative planning across sectors occurred through discharge link meetings. Comparative analysis was used to investigate health system measures before and after service implementation. RESULTS: A 15.7-day decrease in hospital LOS and decreased hospital readmission rates were observed after enhanced service implementation. Functional Independence Measure (FIM) efficiency improved for those discharged from inpatient rehabilitation. Average wait time for community rehabilitation services decreased from 44 days to 4.4 days. The mean total number of community therapy visits more than doubled to an average of 12 per client. CONCLUSION: The provision of timely more intensive home-based rehabilitation services for new stroke survivors transitioning home and unable to access outpatient care was associated with decreased hospital LOS and decreased readmission rates.

Association between changes in loneliness identified through screening and changes in depression or anxiety in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Changes in loneliness are associated with corresponding changes in depression, anxiety, and general health in population surveys, but few studies have assessed these associations through repeated screening in clinical settings. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study among individuals ≥age 65 in an integrated health care system who completed loneliness screening before two annual wellness visits, separated by a mean of 12.9 (SD 2.0) months, between 2013 and 2018. Their responses identified four subgroups: individuals who were persistently lonely; not lonely; experienced an increase (recently lonely); or decrease (previously lonely) in loneliness. Loneliness was assessed with a single item. Depression was assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Anxiety was assessed with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2. Fair/poor general health was assessed by a single item. Linear mixed effects models assessed changes in outcomes after covariate adjustment. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 24,666 individuals (19.2% of older adults in the system). Mean age was 73.7 years (SD 6.4); 54.6% were female, and 11.6% were members of racial and ethnic minority groups. Of these individuals, 1936 (7.8%) were persistently lonely, 1687 (6.8%) were recently lonely, 1551 (6.3%) were previously lonely, and 19,492 (79.0%) were not lonely at either time point. After adjustment for sociodemographic, clinical and social variables, recent loneliness was associated with increases in depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.19) and anxiety (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.32-2.10). Previous loneliness was associated with decreases in depression (aOR, 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.58) and anxiety (aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.90). Changes in loneliness were not associated with changes in general health. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in loneliness identified through screening were associated with corresponding changes in depression and anxiety. These findings support the potential value of identifying social risk factors in clinical settings among older adults.

Rural-Urban Differences in Stroke Risk Factors, Incidence, and Mortality in People With and Without Prior Stroke.

Background Rural residence is associated with stroke incidence and mortality, but little is known about potential rural/urban differences in ambulatory stroke care. Methods and Results We used the CANHEART (Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team) cohort, created from linked administrative databases from the province of Ontario, Canada, and divided into primary (N=6 207 032) and secondary (N=75 823) prevention cohorts based on the absence or presence of prior stroke. We defined rural communities as those with a population size of ≤10 000 and within each of the primary and secondary prevention cohorts, compared cardiovascular risk factors and care between rural and urban areas. We then calculated sex-/age-standardized rates of stroke incidence and mortality per 1000 person-years between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2012 and used cause-specific hazard models to compare outcomes in rural versus urban areas adjusting for age, sex, income, ethnicity, smoking, physical activity and comorbid conditions, and accounting for the competing risk of death in the model for the occurrence of stroke incidence. In the primary prevention cohort, rural residents were less likely than urban ones to be screened for diabetes mellitus (70.9% versus 81.3%) and hyperlipidemia (66.2% versus 78.4%) and less likely to achieve diabetes mellitus control (hemoglobin A1c ≤7% in 51.3% versus 54.3%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). In the secondary prevention cohort, the prevalence and treatment of risk factors were similar in rural and urban residents. After adjustment for sociodemographic and comorbid conditions, rural residence was associated with higher rates of stroke and all-cause mortality in both the primary prevention (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] for stroke, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.09; aHR for mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10) and the secondary prevention cohort (aHR for stroke, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19; aHR for mortality, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11). Conclusions In this population-based study of over 6 million people with universal access to physician and hospital services, risk factors were more prevalent but less likely to be controlled in rural than in urban residents without prior stroke, whereas in those with prior stroke, risk factor prevalence and treatment were similar. Rural residence was associated with the rate of stroke and death even after adjustment for risk factors. Future efforts should focus not only on control of known vascular risk factors but also on addressing other determinants of health in rural communities.