Asimos Andrew W, Ward Shana, Brice Jane H, Enright Dianne, Rosamond Wayne D, Goldstein Larry B, Studnek Jonathan
Department of Emergency Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Dickson Advanced Analytics Group, Carolinas HeathCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014 Nov-Dec;23(10):2800-2808. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.07.004. Epub 2014 Oct 5.
Our goal was to determine if a statewide Emergency Medical Services (EMSs) Stroke Triage and Destination Plan (STDP), specifying bypass of hospitals unable to routinely treat stroke patients with thrombolytics (community hospitals), changed bypass frequency of those hospitals.
Using a statewide EMS database, we identified stroke patients eligible for community hospital bypass and compared bypass frequency 1-year before and after STDP implementation.
Symptom onset time was missing for 48% of pre-STDP (n = 2385) and 29% of post-STDP (n = 1612) cases. Of the remaining cases with geocodable scene addresses, 58% (1301) in the pre-STDP group and 61% (2,078) in the post-STDP group were ineligible for bypass, because a community hospital was not the closest hospital to the stroke event location. Because of missing data records for some EMS agencies in 1 or both study periods, we included EMS agencies from only 49 of 100 North Carolina counties in our analysis. Additionally, we found conflicting hospital classifications by different EMS agencies for 35% of all hospitals (n = 38 of 108). Given these limitations, we found similar community hospital bypass rates before and after STDP implementation (64%, n = 332 of 520 vs. 63%, n = 345 of 552; P = .65).
Missing symptom duration time and data records in our state's EMS data system, along with conflicting hospital classifications between EMS agencies limit the ability to study statewide stroke routing protocols. Bypass policies may apply to a minority of patients because a community hospital is not the closest hospital to most stroke events. Given these limitations, we found no difference in community hospital bypass rates after implementation of the STDP.
我们的目标是确定一项全州范围的紧急医疗服务(EMS)卒中分诊与转运计划(STDP),即规定绕过无法常规治疗卒中溶栓患者的医院(社区医院),是否改变了这些医院的被绕过频率。
利用全州范围的EMS数据库,我们确定了符合绕过社区医院条件的卒中患者,并比较了STDP实施前后1年的绕过频率。
STDP实施前48%(n = 2385)的病例和实施后29%(n = 1612)的病例症状发作时间缺失。在其余具有可地理编码现场地址的病例中,STDP实施前组58%(1301例)和实施后组61%(2078例)不符合绕过条件,因为社区医院并非距离卒中事件地点最近的医院。由于在1个或2个研究期间部分EMS机构存在数据记录缺失,我们的分析仅纳入了北卡罗来纳州100个县中49个县的EMS机构。此外,我们发现所有医院中有35%(108家医院中的38家)被不同EMS机构分类不一致。鉴于这些局限性,我们发现STDP实施前后社区医院的绕过率相似(64%,520例中的332例 vs. 63%,552例中的345例;P = 0.65)。
我们州EMS数据系统中症状持续时间和数据记录的缺失,以及EMS机构之间医院分类的冲突,限制了对全州范围卒中转运方案的研究能力。由于社区医院并非大多数卒中事件距离最近的医院,绕过政策可能仅适用于少数患者。鉴于这些局限性,我们发现实施STDP后社区医院的绕过率没有差异。