| Literature DB >> 35387821 |
Willemijn J Maas1,2, Maarten M H Lahr2, Maarten Uyttenboogaart3,4, Erik Buskens2,5, Durk-Jouke van der Zee2,5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to identify barriers for the timely delivery of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) and to investigate the effects of potential workflow improvements in the acute stroke pathway.Entities:
Keywords: organisation of health services; organisational development; stroke
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35387821 PMCID: PMC8987797 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056415
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Conceptual models of the acute stroke pathway: ‘mothership’ and ‘drip and ship’. CT, computed tomography; CTA, CT angiography; EMS, emergency medical services; EVT, endovascular thrombectomy; IVT, intravenous thrombolysis; POC, point of care.
Characteristics, diagnostics and time delays of the MS and DS models
| MS model | n | DS model | n | |
| Patient characteristics | ||||
|
| 65 (14) | 83 | 70 (13) | 165 |
|
| 39 (47) | 83 | 99 (60) | 165 |
|
| 53 (64) | 83 | 132 (80) | 165 |
| Patient diagnostics | ||||
|
| 16 (11–19) | 82 | 17 (12–19) | 165 |
|
| 36 (45) | 80 | 92 (60) | 155 |
| Process times EMS | ||||
|
| 20 (6–63) | 66 | 11 (3–33) | 139 |
|
| 9 (7–12) | 65 | 9 (7–12) | 132 |
|
| 20 (16–26) | 62 | 16 (12–20) | 126 |
|
| 17 (12–23) | 61 | 12 (7–15) | 122 |
| Process times in-hospital, PSC or CSC | ||||
|
| 13 (11–17) | 63 | 15 (11–20) | 125 |
| Route 1 | ||||
|
| 10 (8–16) | 23 | 8 (4–19) | 56 |
|
| 10 (6–22) | 23 | 11 (5–19) | 57 |
| Route 2 | ||||
|
| 6 (5–10) | 30 | 9 (5–11) | 62 |
|
| 11 (7–18) | 30 | 9 (4–15) | 63 |
| Route 3 | ||||
|
| 7 (4–14) | 29 | 14 (9–30) | 31 |
| Process times EMS for transfer from PSC to CSC | ||||
|
| NA | 28 (15–44) | 148 | |
|
| NA | 8 (5–10) | 140 | |
|
| NA | 14 (10–16) | 139 | |
|
| NA | 27 (19–32) | 150 | |
| Process times in-hospital CSC | ||||
| Route additional diagnostics | ||||
|
| NA | 23 (17–45) | 17 | |
|
| NA | 29 (14–70) | 18 | |
|
| 58 (44–82) | 76 | NA | |
|
| 107 (74–133) | 60 | 26 (16–38) | 151 |
|
| 28 (25–35) | 77 | 30 (24–35) | 163 |
| Overall time | ||||
|
| 205 (160–260) | 83 | 230 (198–275) | 165 |
| mRS after 90 days | 83 | 165 | ||
|
| 4 (5) | 12 (7) | ||
|
| 22 (27) | 32 (19) | ||
|
| 17 (21) | 42 (26) | ||
|
| 12 (15) | 26 (16) | ||
|
| 5 (6) | 13 (8) | ||
|
| 1 (1) | 3 (2) | ||
|
| 22 (27) | 37 (22) |
Time variables are in minutes, median (IQR).
CSC, comprehensive stroke centre; CT, computed tomography; CTA, CT angiogram; DS, drip-and-ship model; ED, emergency department; EMS, emergency medical services; IVT, intravenous thrombolysis; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; MS, mothership model; NA, not applicable; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; OTG, time from stroke onset to groin puncture; PSC, primary stroke centre.
Simulation results
| Scenarios | DIDO (DS) | Time from CSC arrival to angiography suite (MS) | OTG | Likelihood of functional independence (95% CI) | Likelihood of mortality (95% CI) |
| 0 (DS) | 92.6 (92.4–92.8) | NA | 240.7 (240.2–241.1) | 52.4 (52.3 - 52.5) | 21.4 (21.3 - 21.5) |
| 1a | 85.7 (85.5–85.8) | NA | 233.8 (233.4–234.1) | 53.3 (53.1 - 53.4) | 20.8 (20.7 - 20.9) |
| 1b | 84.7 (84.6–84.9) | NA | 232.8 (232.5–233.2) | 53.4 (53.2 - 53.5) | 20.7 (20.6 - 20.8) |
| 1c | 89.7 (89.6–89.9) | NA | 237.8 (237.4–238.2) | 52.8 (52.6 - 52.9) | 21.2 (21.1 - 21.2) |
| 1d | 74.9 (74.8–75.0) | NA | 223.0 (222.6–223.4) | 54.6 (54.5 - 54.7) | 19.9 (19.8 - 19.9) |
| 2a | 92.6 (92.4–92.8) | NA | 217.4 (217.1–217.7) | 55.3 (55.1 - 55.4) | 19.4 (19.3 - 19.5) |
| 2b | 92.6 (92.4–92.8) | NA | 221.0 (220.6–221.4) | 54.8 (54.7 - 55.0) | 19.7 (19.6 - 19.8) |
| 2c | 92.6 (92.4–92.8) | NA | 197.7 (197.4–198.0) | 57.7 (57.6 - 57.8) | 17.8 (17.7 - 17.9) |
| 3 | 74.9 (74.8–75.0) | NA | 180.0 (179.7–180.3) | 59.8 (59.7 - 59.9) | 16.4 (16.3 - 16.5) |
| 0 (MS) | NA | 96.9 (96.7–97.2) | 214.5 (214.1–215.0) | 49.2 (49.1 - 49.4) | 27.7 (27.6 - 27.8) |
| 4a | NA | 95.0 (94.9–95.3) | 212.7 (212.3–213.1) | 49.4 (49.2 - 49.5) | 27.6 (27.5 - 27.7) |
| 4b | NA | 60.7 (60.6–60.9) | 178.4 (178.0–178.7) | 51.5 (51.4 - 51.6) | 25.8 (25.7 - 25.9) |
| 4c | NA | 96.9 (96.7–97.2) | 194.1 (193.7–194.6) | 50.5 (50.4v50.7) | 26.7 (26.6 - 26.8) |
| 4d | NA | 58.9 (58.8–69.0) | 156.1 (155.7–156.5) | 52.9 (52.8 - 53.0) | 24.7 (24.6 - 24.8) |
Time variables are in minutes, mean (95% CI). Likelihood of functional independence and mortality are in percentages (95% CI).
Scenario 0: baseline model, DS or MS model.
Scenario 1: PSC workflow improvements for DS patients; 1a, all patients are routed according to ED route 2 (CT, CTA, IVT); 1b, prealert to EMS, EMS response time 0 min; 1c, EMS handover time reduced to 11 min; 1d, 1a+1b+1c.
Scenario 2: CSC workflow improvements for DS patients; 2a, expedite CSC door to angiography suite by 5 min; 2b, expedite angiography suite to groin by 10 min, SA1; 2c, 2a+2b.
Scenario 3: total workflow improvements DS patients; 3, 1d+2c.
Scenario 4: total workflow improvement MS patients; 4a, all patients are routed according to ED route 2 (CT, CTA, IVT); 3b, expedite time from last examination ED (IVT/CTA) to angiography suite by 30 min; 3c, expedite angiography suite to groin by 10 min; 3d, 3a+3b+3c.
CSC, comprehensive stroke centre; CT, computed tomography; CTA, CT angiogram; DIDO, door-in-door-out; DS, drip-and-ship model; ED, emergency department; EMS, emergency medical services; IVT, intravenous thrombolysis; MS, mothership model; NA, not applicable; OTG, time from stroke onset to groin puncture; PSC, primary stroke centre; SA, sensitivity analysis.
Figure 2Shifts in likelihood for each mRS score when all workflow improvements are executed in the DS and MS models. DS, ‘drip and ship’ model; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; MS, ‘mothership’ model.