Blog
About

12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of Centralizing Acute Stroke Services on Stroke Care Provision in Two Large Metropolitan Areas in England

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

          Abstract

          Background and Purpose—

          In 2010, Greater Manchester and London centralized acute stroke care into hyperacute units (Greater Manchester=3, London=8), with additional units providing ongoing specialist stroke care nearer patients’ homes. Greater Manchester patients presenting within 4 hours of symptom onset were eligible for hyperacute unit admission; all London patients were eligible. Research indicates that postcentralization, only London’s stroke mortality fell significantly more than elsewhere in England. This article attempts to explain this difference by analyzing how centralization affects provision of evidence-based clinical interventions.

          Methods—

          Controlled before and after analysis was conducted, using national audit data covering Greater Manchester, London, and a noncentralized urban comparator (38 623 adult stroke patients, April 2008 to December 2012). Likelihood of receiving all interventions measured reliably in pre- and postcentralization audits (brain scan; stroke unit admission; receiving antiplatelet; physiotherapist, nutrition, and swallow assessments) was calculated, adjusting for age, sex, stroke-type, consciousness, and whether stroke occurred in-hospital.

          Results—

          Postcentralization, likelihood of receiving interventions increased in all areas. London patients were overall significantly more likely to receive interventions, for example, brain scan within 3 hours: Greater Manchester=65.2% (95% confidence interval=64.3–66.2); London=72.1% (71.4–72.8); comparator=55.5% (54.8–56.3). Hyperacute units were significantly more likely to provide interventions, but fewer Greater Manchester patients were admitted to these (Greater Manchester=39%; London=93%). Differences resulted from contrasting hyperacute unit referral criteria and how reliably they were followed.

          Conclusions—

          Centralized systems admitting all stroke patients to hyperacute units, as in London, are significantly more likely to provide evidence-based clinical interventions. This may help explain previous research showing better outcomes associated with fully centralized models.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke.

            (2013)
          Organised stroke unit care is provided by multidisciplinary teams that exclusively manage stroke patients in a ward dedicated to stroke patients, with a mobile stroke team or within a generic disability service (mixed rehabilitation ward). To assess the effect of stroke unit care compared with alternative forms of care for people following a stroke. We searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group (January 2013) and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group (January 2013), MEDLINE (2008 to September 2012), EMBASE (2008 to September 2012) and CINAHL (1982 to September 2012). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched 17 trial registers (January 2013), performed citation tracking of included studies, checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted trialists. Randomised controlled clinical trials comparing organised inpatient stroke unit care with an alternative service. After formal risk of bias assessment, we have now excluded previously included quasi-randomised trials. Two review authors initially assessed eligibility and trial quality. We checked descriptive details and trial data with the co-ordinators of the original trials. We included 28 trials, involving 5855 participants, comparing stroke unit care with an alternative service. More-organised care was consistently associated with improved outcomes. Twenty-one trials (3994 participants) compared stroke unit care with care provided in general wards. Stroke unit care showed reductions in the odds of death recorded at final (median one year) follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.94; P = 0.005), the odds of death or institutionalised care (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; P = 0.0003) and the odds of death or dependency (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; P = 0.0007). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the observed benefits remained when the analysis was restricted to securely randomised trials that used unequivocally blinded outcome assessment with a fixed period of follow-up. Outcomes were independent of patient age, sex, initial stroke severity or stroke type, and appeared to be better in stroke units based in a discrete ward. There was no indication that organised stroke unit care resulted in a longer hospital stay. Stroke patients who receive organised inpatient care in a stroke unit are more likely to be alive, independent, and living at home one year after the stroke. The benefits were most apparent in units based in a discrete ward. We observed no systematic increase in the length of inpatient stay.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            National clinical guideline for stroke

             I Party,  ISW Party,  I. Party (2012)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Impact on Clinical and Cost Outcomes of a Centralized Approach to Acute Stroke Care in London: A Comparative Effectiveness Before and After Model

              Background In July 2010 a new multiple hub-and-spoke model for acute stroke care was implemented across the whole of London, UK, with continuous specialist care during the first 72 hours provided at 8 hyper-acute stroke units (HASUs) compared to the previous model of 30 local hospitals receiving acute stroke patients. We investigated differences in clinical outcomes and costs between the new and old models. Methods We compared outcomes and costs ‘before’ (July 2007–July 2008) vs. ‘after’ (July 2010–June 2011) the introduction of the new model, adjusted for patient characteristics and national time trends in mortality and length of stay. We constructed 90-day and 10-year decision analytic models using data from population based stroke registers, audits and published sources. Mortality and length of stay were modelled using survival analysis. Findings In a pooled sample of 307 patients ‘before’ and 3156 patients ‘after’, survival improved in the ‘after’ period (age adjusted hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.41–0.72). The predicted survival rates at 90 days in the deterministic model adjusted for national trends were 87.2% ‘before’ % (95% CI 86.7%–87.7%) and 88.7% ‘after’ (95% CI 88.6%–88.8%); a relative reduction in deaths of 12% (95% CI 8%–16%). Based on a cohort of 6,438 stroke patients, the model produces a total cost saving of £5.2 million per year at 90 days (95% CI £4.9-£5.5 million; £811 per patient). Conclusion A centralized model for acute stroke care across an entire metropolitan city appears to have reduced mortality for a reduced cost per patient, predominately as a result of reduced hospital length of stay.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Stroke
                Stroke
                STR
                Stroke; a Journal of Cerebral Circulation
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                0039-2499
                1524-4628
                August 2015
                27 July 2015
                : 46
                : 8
                : 2244-2251
                Affiliations
                From the Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK (A.I.G.R, S.M., S.J.T., N.J.F.); Clinical Standards Department, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK (A.H., A.G.R.); Research Department of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, Royal Free Campus, London, UK (R.M.H.); Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK (R.B., C.P.); Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, Division of Health & Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK (C.M., A.G.R., C.D.A.W.); King’s College London Stroke Research Patients and Family Group, Division of Health & Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK (C.M., N.P., A.G.R.); National Institute of Health Research Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, London, UK (C.M., A.G.R, C.D.A.W.); National Institute of Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, London, UK (C.D.A.W.); Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK (A.G.R.); and Stroke & Vascular Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK (P.J.T.).
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Angus I.G. Ramsay, PhD, Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1–19 Torrington Place, London WC1E7HB, UK. E-mail angus.ramsay@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Article
                00031
                10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009723
                4512749
                26130092
                © 2015 The Authors.

                Stroke is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDervis License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                Product
                Categories
                54
                100
                Original Contributions
                Clinical Sciences
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article