Dominique A Cadilhac1, Joosup Kim2, Natasha A Lannin3, Moira K Kapral4, Lee H Schwamm5, Martin S Dennis6, Bo Norrving7, Atte Meretoja8. 1. Stroke and Ageing Research, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia dominique.cadilhac@monash.edu. 2. Stroke and Ageing Research, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia. 3. College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia Alfred Health, Prahran, Australia. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 5. Department of Neurology, Stroke Service Division, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland. 7. Department of Clinical Sciences, Neurology, Lund University, Sweden. 8. Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia Department of Neurology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine monitoring of the quality of stroke care is becoming increasingly important since patient outcomes could be improved with better access to proven treatments. It remains unclear how many countries have established a national registry for monitoring stroke care. AIMS: To describe the current status of national, hospital-based stroke registries that have a focus on monitoring access to evidence-based care and patient outcomes and to summarize the main features of these registries. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: We undertook a systematic search of the published literature to identify the registries that are considered in their country to represent a national standardized dataset for acute stroke care and outcomes. Our initial keyword search yielded 5002 potential papers, of which we included 316 publications representing 28 national stroke registries from 26 countries. Where reported, data were most commonly collected with a waiver of patient consent (70%). Most registries used web-based systems for data collection (57%) and 25% used data linkage. Few variables were measured consistently among the registries reflecting their different local priorities. Funding, resource requirements, and coverage also varied. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an overview of the current use of national stroke registries, a description of their common features relevant to monitoring stroke care in hospitals. Formal registration and description of registries would facilitate better awareness of efforts in this field.
BACKGROUND: Routine monitoring of the quality of stroke care is becoming increasingly important since patient outcomes could be improved with better access to proven treatments. It remains unclear how many countries have established a national registry for monitoring stroke care. AIMS: To describe the current status of national, hospital-based stroke registries that have a focus on monitoring access to evidence-based care and patient outcomes and to summarize the main features of these registries. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: We undertook a systematic search of the published literature to identify the registries that are considered in their country to represent a national standardized dataset for acute stroke care and outcomes. Our initial keyword search yielded 5002 potential papers, of which we included 316 publications representing 28 national stroke registries from 26 countries. Where reported, data were most commonly collected with a waiver of patient consent (70%). Most registries used web-based systems for data collection (57%) and 25% used data linkage. Few variables were measured consistently among the registries reflecting their different local priorities. Funding, resource requirements, and coverage also varied. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an overview of the current use of national stroke registries, a description of their common features relevant to monitoring stroke care in hospitals. Formal registration and description of registries would facilitate better awareness of efforts in this field.
Authors: George A Mensah; Ralph L Sacco; Barbara G Vickrey; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Salina Waddy; Bruce Ovbiagele; Jeyaraj Durai Pandian; Bo Norrving; Valery L Feigin Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Robert Mikulík; Valeria Caso; Natan M Bornstein; Veronika Svobodová; Francesca Romana Pezzella; Andreea Grecu; Steven Simsic; Zuzana Gdovinova; Anna Członkowska; Tamara S Mishchenko; Yuriy Flomin; Ivan G Milanov; Silva Andonova; Cristina Tiu; Anita Arsovska; Hrvoje Budinčević; Stanislav A Groppa; Daniel Bereczki; Janika Kõrv; Tatiana Kharitonova; Milan R Vosko Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2020-01-20
Authors: Dominique A Cadilhac; Nadine E Andrew; Enna Stroil Salama; Kelvin Hill; Sandy Middleton; Eleanor Horton; Ian Meade; Sarah Kuhle; Mark R Nelson; Rohan Grimley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Hong-Kyun Park; Seong-Eun Kim; Yong-Jin Cho; Jun Yup Kim; Hyunji Oh; Beom Joon Kim; Jihoon Kang; Keon-Joo Lee; Min Uk Jang; Jong-Moo Park; Kwang-Yeol Park; Kyung Bok Lee; Soo Joo Lee; Ji Sung Lee; Juneyoung Lee; Ki Hwa Yang; Ah Rum Choi; Mi Yeon Kang; Eric E Smith; Philip B Gorelick; Hee-Joon Bae Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2019-05-24
Authors: Mohammad El-Ghanem; Francisco E Gomez; Prateeka Koul; Rolla Nuoman; Justin G Santarelli; Krishna Amuluru; Chirag D Gandhi; Eric R Cohen; Philip Meyers; Fawaz Al-Mufti Journal: Interv Neurol Date: 2018-12-13