Which Road to Recovery?: Factors Influencing Postacute Stroke Discharge Destinations: A Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The criteria for determining the level of postacute care for patients with stroke are variable and inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to identify key factors influencing the selection of postacute level of care for these patients. METHODS: We used a collaborative 4-round Delphi process to achieve a refined list of factors influencing postacute level of care selection. Our Delphi panel of experts consisted of 32 panelists including physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, nurses, stroke survivors, administrators, policy experts, and individuals associated with third-party insurance companies. RESULTS: In round 1, 207 factors were proposed, with subsequent discussion resulting in consolidation into 15 factors for consideration. In round 2, 15 factors were ranked with consensus on 10 factors; in round 3,10 factors were ranked with consensus on 9 factors. In round 4, the final round, 9 factors were rated with Likert scores ranging from 5 (most important) to 1(not important). The percentage of panelists who provided a rating of 4 or above were as follows: likelihood to benefit from an active rehabilitation program (97%), need for clinicians with specialized rehabilitation skills (94%), need for active and ongoing medical management and monitoring (84%), ability to tolerate an active rehabilitation program (74%), need for caregiver training to return to the community (48%), family/caregiver support (39%), likelihood to return to community/home (39%), ability to return to physical home environment (32%), and premorbid dementia (16%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an expert, consensus-based set of key factors to be considered when determining where stroke patients are discharged for postacute care. These factors may be useful in developing a decision support tool for use in clinical settings.

Catheterization Laboratory Activation Time in Patients Transferred With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the Mission: Lifeline STEMI Accelerator-2 Project.

BACKGROUND: Catheterization laboratory (cath lab) activation time is a newly available process measure for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction requiring inter-hospital transfers for primary percutaneous coronary intervention that reflects inter-facility communication and urgent mobilization of interventional laboratory resources. Our aim was to determine whether faster activation is associated with improved reperfusion time and outcomes in the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline Accelerator-2 Project. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2015 to March 2017, treatment times of 2063 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction requiring inter-hospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention from 12 regions around the United States were stratified by cath lab activation time (first hospital arrival to cath lab activation within [timely] or beyond 20 minutes [delayed]). Median cath lab activation time was 26 minutes, with a delayed activation observed in 1241 (60.2%) patients. Prior cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, arterial hypotension at admission, and black or Latino ethnicity were independent factors of delayed cath lab activation. Timely cath lab activation patients had shorter door-in door-out times (40 versus 68 minutes) and reperfusion times (98 versus 135 minutes) with 80.1% treated within the national goal of ≤120 minutes versus 39.0% in the delayed group. CONCLUSIONS: Cath lab activation within 20 minutes across a geographically diverse group of hospitals was associated with performing primary percutaneous coronary intervention within the national goal of ≤120 minutes in >75% of patients. While several confounding factors were associated with delayed activation, this work suggests that this process measure has the potential to direct resources and practices to more timely treatment of patients requiring inter-hospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Are Stroke Survivors Discharged to the Recommended Postacute Setting?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the processes and barriers involved in providing postdischarge stroke care. DESIGN: Prospective study of discharge planners' (DP) and physical therapists' (PT) interpretation of factors contributing to patients' discharge destination. SETTING: Twenty-three hospitals in the northeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: After exclusions, data on patients (N=427) hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of stroke between May 2015 and November 2016 were examined. Of the patients, 45% were women, and the median age was 71 years. DPs and PTs caring for these patients were queried regarding the selection of discharge destination. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of actual discharge destination for stroke patients with the destinations recommended by their DPs and PTs. RESULTS: In total, 184 patients (43.1%) were discharged home, 146 (34.2%) to an inpatient rehabilitation facility, 94 (22.0%) to a skilled nursing facility, and 3 (0.7%) to a long-term acute care hospital. DPs and PTs agreed on the recommended discharge destination in 355 (83.1%) cases. The actual discharge destination matched the DP and PT recommended discharge destination in 92.5% of these cases. In 23 cases (6.5%), the patient was discharged to a less intensive setting than recommended by both respondents. In 4 cases (1.1%), the patient was discharged to a more intensive level of care. In 2 cases (0.6%), the patient was discharged to a long-term acute care hospital rather than an inpatient rehabilitation facility as recommended. Patient or family preference was cited by at least 1 respondent for the discrepancy in discharge destination for 13 patients (3.1%); insurance barriers were cited for 9 patients (2.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Most stroke survivors in the northeast United States are discharged to the recommended postacute care destination based on the consensus of DP and PT opinions. Further research is needed to guide postacute care service selection.

Stroke Center Certification and Performance: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium Region.

Background: The NorthEast Cerebrovascular Consortium (NECC) was established in 2006 to improve stroke-systems-of-care models. Methods: This study evaluates the increase in stroke quality over time in NECC and Non-NECC regions, defined as the change in proportion of hospitals over time who received State or National Primary/Comprehensive Stroke Center (PSC/CSC) certification, participated in a national quality program (Get-With-The-Guidelines-Stroke (GWTG-S)), or received GWTG-S Performance Achievement Awards (PAA) from 2005-2013. Analysis of trends was performed (Cochran-Armitage/Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests; Generalized-Estimating Equations). As an exploratory analysis eight NECC region Departments of Health (DOH) were surveyed regarding perceptions of the NECC. Results: During the study period, there were 433.1 ± 10.2 vs 3986.4 ± 187.7 hospitals per year in the NECC vs non-NECC regions. Rate of growth per year increased in both groups for each measure but to a greater degree in the NECC vs Non-NECC regions: PSC/CSC (5.4%/yr vs 3.2%/yr), GWTG-S participation (5.0%/yr vs 2.9%/yr), and PAAs (5.2%/yr vs 2.1%/yr), with state-based certification growth also being higher in the NECC region (4.2%/yr vs 0.4%/yr; all comparisons p < 0.0001). After adjusting for year, significantly more NECC hospitals had PSC/CSC certification, GWTG-S participation, and GWTG-S PAAs than non-NECC sites (all analyses p < 0.0001). One hundred percent of NECC region DOHs were aware of the NECC and involved in functions, 87.5% indicated the NECC provided beneficial assistance. Conclusions: There has been a higher rate of growth of state certification contrasted to national PSC/CSC certification, and a higher rate of growth of participation and achievement in GWTG-S in the northeast region compared to other US regions.

The Leadership Style of "The People's Doctor": A Contemporary Look Back at New York State Commissioner of Health David Axelrod, MD.

David Axelrod, MD, New York State's commissioner of health from 1979 to 1991, had a panoramic view of public health and a legendary track record of tackling complex issues ranging from the Love Canal environmental disaster to HIV/AIDS and end-of-life ethics. Many raved about Axelrod's leadership, whereas others criticized his response and style. Two decades later, we describe his leadership attributes. Our retrospective review incorporates interviews with former staff and coworkers and information from historical archives. Axelrod's leadership style mirrored that of business leaders, goal driven and focused on execution, as opposed to the typical style of public health leaders, more sympathetic to needs of the team. He framed his mission within the context of social justice and data-driven science. His story, one in which leadership inspired passion and loyalty to science, is driven by a laser-sharp focus on the public good. In today's resource-deprived, politically charged environment, Axelrod's methods for achieving positive community health outcomes warrant close scrutiny. (Am J Public Health. 2019;109:85-91. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304710).

Factors associated with 1-year mortality after discharge for acute stroke: what matters?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with 1-year mortality after discharge for acute stroke. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we studied 305 patients with ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage discharged in 2010/2011. We linked Get With The Guidelines®-Stroke clinical data with New York State administrative data and used multivariate regression models to examine variables related to 1-year all-cause mortality poststroke. RESULTS: The mean age was 68.6 ± 14.8 years and 51.1% were women. A total of 146 (47.9%) were discharged directly home, 96 (31.5%) to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), and 63 (20.7%) to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Overall, 24 (7.9%) patients died within 1-year post-discharge. Older age (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.10), higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) on admission (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.17), and discharge destination (IRF vs. home, OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.94; and SNF vs. home, OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.71-6.95) were factors associated with 1-year all-cause mortality. When ambulation status at discharge was added to the model, ambulation with assistance and non-ambulation were significantly associated with mortality (ambulatory with assistance vs. ambulatory, OR 9.42, 95% CI 1.87-47.61; nonambulatory vs. ambulatory, OR 12.65, 95% CI 1.89-84.89). CONCLUSIONS: While age and NIHSS on admission are important predictors of long-term outcomes, factors at discharge - ambulation status at discharge and discharge destination - are associated with 1-year mortality post-discharge for acute stroke and therefore could represent therapeutic targets to improve long-term survival in future studies.

Impact of Regionalization of ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Care on Treatment Times and Outcomes for Emergency Medical Services-Transported Patients Presenting to Hospitals With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Mission: Lifeline Accelerator-2.

BACKGROUND: Regional variations in reperfusion times and mortality in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are influenced by differences in coordinating care between emergency medical services (EMS) and hospitals. Building on the Accelerator-1 Project, we hypothesized that time to reperfusion could be further reduced with enhanced regional efforts. METHODS: Between April 2015 and March 2017, we worked with 12 metropolitan regions across the United States with 132 percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospitals and 946 EMS agencies. Data were collected in the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network)-Get With The Guidelines Registry for quarterly Mission: Lifeline reports. The primary end point was the change in the proportion of EMS-transported patients with first medical contact to device time ≤90 minutes from baseline to final quarter. We also compared treatment times and mortality with patients treated in hospitals not participating in the project during the corresponding time period. RESULTS: During the study period, 10 730 patients were transported to percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospitals, including 974 in the baseline quarter and 972 in the final quarter who met inclusion criteria. Median age was 61 years; 27% were women, 6% had cardiac arrest, and 6% had shock on admission; 10% were black, 12% were Latino, and 10% were uninsured. By the end of the intervention, all process measures reflecting coordination between EMS and hospitals had improved, including the proportion of patients with a first medical contact to device time of ≤90 minutes (67%-74%; P<0.002), a first medical contact to device time to catheterization laboratory activation of ≤20 minutes (38%-56%; P<0.0001), and emergency department dwell time of ≤20 minutes (33%-43%; P<0.0001). Of the 12 regions, 9 regions reduced first medical contact to device time, and 8 met or exceeded the national goal of 75% of patients treated in ≤90 minutes. Improvements in treatment times corresponded with a significant reduction in mortality (in-hospital death, 4.4%-2.3%; P=0.001) that was not apparent in hospitals not participating in the project during the same time period. CONCLUSIONS: Organization of care among EMS and hospitals in 12 regions was associated with significant reductions in time to reperfusion in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction as well as in in-hospital mortality. These findings support a more intensive regional approach to emergency care for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

Establishing Recommendations for Stroke Systems in the Thrombectomy Era: The Upstate New York Stakeholder Proceedings.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and Department of Health Stroke Coverdell Program convened a stakeholder meeting in upstate NY to develop recommendations to enhance stroke systems for acute large vessel occlusion. METHODS: Prehospital, hospital, and Department of Health leadership were invited (n=157). Participants provided goals/concerns and developed recommendations for prehospital triage and interfacility transport, rating each using a 3-level impact (A [high], B, and C [low]) and implementation feasibility (1 [high], 2, and 3 [low]) scale. Six weeks later, participants finalized recommendations. RESULTS: Seventy-one stakeholders (45% of invitees) attended. Six themes around goals/concerns emerged: (1) emergency medical services capacity, (2) validated prehospital screening tools, (3) facility capability, (4) triage/transport guidelines, (5) data capture/feedback tools, and (6) facility competition. In response, high-impact (level A) prehospital recommendations, stratified by implementation feasibility, were (1) use of online medical control for triage (6%); (2) regional transportation strategy (31%), standardized emergency medical services checklists (18%), quality metrics (14%), standardized prehospital screening tools (13%), and feedback for performance improvement (7%); and (3) smartphone application algorithm for screening/decision-making (6%) and ambulance-based telemedicine (6%). Level A interfacility transfer recommendations were (1) standardized transfer process (32%)/timing goals (16%)/regionalized systems (11%), performance metrics (11%), image sharing capabilities (7%); (2) provider education (9%) and stroke toolbox (5%); and (3) interfacility telemedicine (7%) and feedback (2%). CONCLUSIONS: The methods used and recommendations generated provide models for stroke system enhancement. Implementation may vary based on geographic need/capacity and be contingent on establishing standard care practices. Further research is needed to establish optimal implementation strategies.

Selection of Postacute Stroke Rehabilitation Facilities: A Survey of Discharge Planners From the Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium (NECC) Region.

The process of determining the level of care and specific postacute care facility for stroke patients has not been adequately studied. The objective of this study was to better understand the factors that influence postacute care decisions by surveying stroke discharge planners. Requests were sent to discharge planners at 471 hospitals in the Northeast United States to complete an online survey regarding the factors impacting the selection of postacute care. Seventy-seven (16%) discharge planners completed the online survey. Respondents were mainly nurses and social workers and 73% reported ≥20 years healthcare experience. Patients and families were found to be significantly more influential than physicians (P < 0.001) and other clinicians (P = 0.04) in influencing postdischarge care. Other clinicians were significantly more influential than physicians (P < 0.001). Insurance and quality of postacute care were the factors likely to most affect the selection of postacute care facility. Insurance was also identified as the greatest barrier in the selection of level of postacute care (70%; P < 0.001) and specific postacute care facility (46%; P = 0.02). More than half reported that pressure to discharge patients quickly impacts a patients' final destination. Nonclinical factors are perceived by discharge planners to have a major influence on postacute stroke care decision making.

Use of a standardized assessment to predict rehabilitation care after acute stroke.

OBJECTIVE: To pilot a program of formal assessment of rehabilitation needs and predictors of referral to rehabilitation. DESIGN: A prospective pilot project to collect standardized measures of stroke severity and function: National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, premorbid modified Rankin scale, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire, and Barthel Index (BI). These were collected in addition to routine data in the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of referral to any institution-based rehabilitation versus discharge home and referral to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) versus a skilled nursing facility (SNF). SETTING: Twenty-two hospitals within the Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium (located in the northeastern United States). PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected on individuals with acute ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (N=736). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discharge disposition location. RESULTS: The BI score was recorded in 736 (81%) patients. In multivariable analyses, a higher BI score (85-100) was the only factor associated with return home versus need for institution-based rehabilitation (P<.001). Among patients discharged to IRF versus SNF, discharge to IRF was less likely in older patients (odds ratio [OR], .96; confidence interval [CI], .94-.98; P<.001) and in those with prestroke disability (modified Rankin scale score, 2-5) (OR, .47; CI, .28-.78; P=.004) and more likely in those with moderate-severe (BI score, 25-40; OR, 3.26; CI, 1.45-7.30; P=.004) or moderate (BI score, 45-60; OR, 2.47; CI, 1.17-5.21; P=.018) activities of daily living (ADL) impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Formal standardized assessment of rehabilitation needs was feasible in this pilot project. Patients' sociodemographic characteristics, premorbid function, and ADL impairment discriminated better between discharge home and institution-based rehabilitation than between IRF and SNF. Selection of IRF versus SNF appears to be influenced either by unmeasured clinical characteristics of individuals with stroke or by nonclinical factors, such as cost, geography, referral relationships, or IRF availability.

Implementing a state-based stroke quality improvement collaborative: the Massachusetts experience.

BACKGROUND: The Stroke Collaborative Reaching for Excellence is a voluntary stroke quality improvement (QI) collaborative led by a partnership between the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Since 2005, the collaborative has assisted Massachusetts Primary Stroke Service hospitals in improving the quality of acute stroke care based on national clinical guidelines. We provide a general overview for states seeking to establish a public-private partnership to promote hospital stroke QI. METHODS: Based on the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Collaborative model, the program enrolled hospitals, trained staff in data collection, and provided expertise on clinical QI. To assess the success of the model at engaging hospitals, rates of change in participation and case entry were calculated with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2010, 58 of 70 (83%) Primary Stroke Service hospitals participated in the collaborative, accounting for over 85% of the statewide annual stroke discharges. On average, 74% of hospital representatives attended learning sessions, 55% participated in data quality conference calls, and 54% attended regional meetings. Over 39,000 cases were entered into the registry from 2007 to 2010, with a 15% increase from 2007 (mean, 171 ± 136; n = 9425) to 2010 (mean, 197 ± 143; n = 10,809). CONCLUSION: Consistent participation and case entry confirm that a voluntary state-based hospital QI collaborative is feasible and sustainable. This occurred in the absence of continued hospital funding. Further research is needed to identify the relationship between program participation and improved patient care and the generalizability of the model.

Regional implementation of the stroke systems of care model: recommendations of the northeast cerebrovascular consortium.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium was established to examine regional disparities and recommend strategies to improve stroke care based on the Stroke Systems of Care Model. METHODS: An annual summit was first held in 2006, bringing together public health officials, researchers, physicians, nurses, health professionals, state legislators, and advocacy organizations. Best practices and evidence-based interventions within each of the Stroke Systems of Care Model components were presented. Six writing groups were tasked with cataloging each state's current activities and identifying goals for the region. RESULTS: There were significant variations in the delivery of stroke care, particularly in urban versus rural areas, as evidenced by the availability of designated stroke centers and neurologists, and stroke-related death rates. Recommendations to address variations in care delivery included the use of a common stroke data collection system, unified community education criteria, improvements to emergency medical services dispatch and training, adoption of prehospital care measures, creation of a web-based central repository of acute stroke protocols and order sets, a regional atlas of stroke resources and capabilities, a stroke patient "report card" to promote adherence to secondary prevention strategies, and explicit standards for rehabilitation services. CONCLUSIONS: Significant disparities in the delivery of stroke care across the 8 state-region have been identified. Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium demonstrates that multistate regional collaboration is a viable process for developing specific regional recommendations to address those disparities. Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium is assessing the usefulness of the Stroke Systems of Care Model as a framework for implementing a regional approach to stroke across the continuum of care.