Prehospital Comprehensive Stroke Center vs Primary Stroke Center Triage in Patients With Suspected Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke.

Importance: Endovascular therapy (EVT) improves functional outcomes in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) with large vessel occlusion (LVO). Whether implementation of a regional prehospital transport policy for comprehensive stroke center triage increases use of EVT is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the association of a regional prehospital transport policy that directly triages patients with suspected LVO stroke to the nearest comprehensive stroke center with rates of EVT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter preimplementation-postimplementation study used an interrupted time series analysis to compare treatment rates before and after implementation in patients with AIS arriving at 15 primary stroke centers and 8 comprehensive stroke centers in Chicago, Illinois, via emergency medical services (EMS) transport from December 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019 (9 months before and after implementation in September 2018). Data were analyzed from December 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Interventions: Prehospital EMS transport policy to triage patients with suspected LVO stroke, using a 3-item stroke scale, to comprehensive stroke centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of EVT before and after implementation among EMS-transported patients within 6 hours of AIS onset. Results: Among 7709 patients with stroke, 663 (mean [SD] age, 68.5 [14.9] years; 342 women [51.6%] and 321 men [48.4%]; and 348 Black individuals [52.5%]) with AIS arrived within 6 hours of stroke onset by EMS transport: 310 of 2603 (11.9%) in the preimplementation period and 353 of 2637 (13.4%) in the postimplementation period. The EVT rate increased overall among all patients with AIS (preimplementation, 4.9% [95% CI, 4.1%-5.8%]; postimplementation, 7.4% [95% CI, 7.5%-8.5%]; P < .001) and among EMS-transported patients with AIS within 6 hours of onset (preimplementation, 4.8% [95% CI, 3.0%-7.8%]; postimplementation, 13.6% [95% CI, 10.4%-17.6%]; P < .001). On interrupted time series analysis among EMS-transported patients, the level change within 1 month of implementation was 7.15% (P = .04) with no slope change before (0.16%; P = .71) or after (0.08%; P = .89), which indicates a step rather than gradual change. No change in time to thrombolysis or rate of thrombolysis was observed (step change, 1.42%; P = .82). There were no differences in EVT rates in patients not arriving by EMS in the 6- to 24-hour window or by interhospital transfer or walk-in, irrespective of time window. Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of a prehospital transport policy for comprehensive stroke center triage in Chicago was associated with a significant, rapid, and sustained increase in EVT rate for patients with AIS without deleterious associations with thrombolysis rates or times.

The effect of implementing a care coordination program on team dynamics and the patient experience.

OBJECTIVES: Care coordination programs are frequently implemented in the redesign of primary care systems, focused on improving patient outcomes and reducing utilization. However, redesign can be disruptive, affect patient experiences, and undermine elements in the patient-centered medical home, such as team-based care. STUDY DESIGN: Case-controlled study with difference-in-differences (DID) and cross-sectional analyses. METHODS: The phased implementation of a care coordination program permitted evaluation of a natural experiment to compare measures of patient experience and teamwork in practices with and without care coordinators. Patient experience scores were compared before and after the introduction of care coordinators, using DID analyses. Cross-sectional data were used to compare teamwork, based on the relational coordination survey, and physician-perceived barriers to coordinated care between clinics with and without care coordinators. RESULTS: We evaluated survey responses from 459 staff and physicians and 13,441 patients in 26 primary care practices. Practices with care coordinators did not have significantly different relational coordination scores compared with practices without care coordinators, and physicians in these practices did not report reduced barriers to coordinated care. After implementation of the program, patients in practices with care coordinators reported a more positive experience with staff over time (DID, 2.6 percentage points; P = .0009). CONCLUSIONS: A flexible program that incorporates care coordinators into the existing care team was minimally disruptive to existing team dynamics, and the embedded care coordinators were associated with a small increase in patient ratings that reflected a more positive experience with staff.

Complexity in Redesigning Depression Care: Comparing Intention Versus Implementation of an Automated Depression Screening and Monitoring Program.

Health care technology promises to improve quality and decrease costs while improving the patient experience. A recent trial tested a novel health technology that sought to reduce barriers to guideline-recommended depression care by coupling automated telephonic patient assessment with provider notification and decision support. This study compares the intended effects and the end users' experience with using this technology. Responses to semi-structured interviews with the leadership and design team (the intention group) were compared with responses from health professionals in clinics using the technology (the implementation group). Qualitative methods were applied to compare perspectives on the role of technology in care delivery and on the technology's impact on barriers to providing guideline-recommended care. Four members of the intention group and 17 members of the implementation group were interviewed. The 2 groups had similar notions of technology's role in care delivery. The technology increased provider awareness, empowered midlevel providers, and facilitated collaboration among care team members. However, the implementation group identified gaps in care processes and in the informatics system that the technology did not address, and for which providers remained responsible. The 2 groups had comparable perspectives on the value and limits of technology in improving adherence to guideline-recommended care. However, the intention group did not discuss many of the shortcomings identified by the implementation group. Also, the interviews suggest that although some barriers persisted and a few new ones arose, the technology succeeded in reducing barriers to guideline-recommended care.