Ye Zhiqiu, Gilchrist Siobhan, Omeaku Nina, Shantharam Sharada, Ritchey Matthew, Coleman King Sallyann M, Sperling Laurence, Holl Jane L
Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation, University of Chicago Medicine.
ASRT, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2025 Feb;34(2):108174. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2024.108174. Epub 2024 Dec 5.
Lack of care coordination between Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and hospitals contributes to delay of acute stroke (AS) treatment. In the United States, states have adopted laws to improve the quality of EMS and hospital care; the degree to which these laws create regulatory incentives to promote care coordination between them is less well known. We examined state variation in attributes of laws that may influence AS care coordination between EMS and hospitals.
We selected ten law "dyads" across seven domains of EMS and hospital AS care informed by published risk assessments of critical steps for improved door-to-needle time and door-in-door-out time. We assessed concordance in prescriptiveness (degree to which levels were similar) and in adoption (degree to which laws were adopted concurrently) of the laws in effect between January 2002 and January 2018 in the United States.
The proportion of states with prescriptiveness concordance ranged from 47 % (e.g., inter-facility transfer agreements, comprehensive, primary stroke center certification) to 75 % (e.g., Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) for EMS and hospitals). Adoption concordance ranged from 31 % (e.g., inter-facility transfer agreements, Acute Stroke Ready Hospital certification) to 86 % (e.g., CQI for EMS and hospitals). Laws for EMS triage were less prescriptive than laws for stroke center certification in 22 %-35 % of states adopting both laws, depending on stroke center type.
Subsequent policy implementation and impact studies may benefit from assessing concordance and prescriptiveness in policy intervention adoption, particularly as a foundation for evaluating delays in AS treatment due to inefficient care coordination.
紧急医疗服务(EMS)与医院之间缺乏护理协调会导致急性中风(AS)治疗延迟。在美国,各州已通过法律来提高EMS和医院护理质量;这些法律在多大程度上创造了监管激励措施以促进它们之间的护理协调,目前尚鲜为人知。我们研究了可能影响EMS与医院之间AS护理协调的法律属性的州际差异。
根据已发表的关于缩短门到针时间和门进出门时间关键步骤的风险评估,我们在EMS和医院AS护理的七个领域中选择了十个法律“二元组”。我们评估了2002年1月至2018年1月在美国生效的法律在规定性(水平相似程度)和采用情况(法律同时采用的程度)方面的一致性。
规定性一致的州的比例从47%(例如,机构间转移协议、全面的初级中风中心认证)到75%(例如,EMS和医院的持续质量改进(CQI))不等。采用一致性从31%(例如,机构间转移协议、急性中风准备医院认证)到86%(例如,EMS和医院的CQI)不等。在同时采用这两种法律的22%-35%的州中,EMS分诊法律的规定性低于中风中心认证法律,具体取决于中风中心类型。
后续的政策实施和影响研究可能会受益于评估政策干预采用中的一致性和规定性,特别是作为评估由于护理协调效率低下导致的AS治疗延迟的基础。