BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Significant delays often occur during the treatment of patients with acute stroke. Some of those delays occur in the hospital. We attempted to shorten inhospital treatment intervals by creating a rapid-response system, similar to that available for cardiac arrest, that would allow the stroke team to be available within a few minutes to care for stroke victims. METHODS: We connected all beepers (pocket pagers) of stroke team members to a common access number and instructed the emergency staff to activate that number immediately upon arrival of a stroke victim. We monitored the response time and treatment interval for patients who were treated after this system was activated (Code Stroke patients) during the first 3 months of its availability and compared the results to those of patients seen for similar reasons during the study period but without the use of Code Stroke (control patients). RESULTS: A total of 12 Code Stroke patients were available for analysis, representing 12% of all patients (n = 98) seen in the emergency department for ischemic stroke during the study period. The remaining 86 patients constituted the control group. The mean time to evaluation of a Code Stroke patient by a stroke team member was 4.8 minutes (range, 2 to 7 minutes), and the mean time to treatment institution was 30 minutes (range, 10 to 120 minutes). There were significant differences between the consultation intervals in the two groups (P < .05). There was only a trend of a difference between treatment institution intervals (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to shorten inhospital treatment delays by instituting rapid-response systems within individual institutions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Significant delays often occur during the treatment of patients with acute stroke. Some of those delays occur in the hospital. We attempted to shorten inhospital treatment intervals by creating a rapid-response system, similar to that available for cardiac arrest, that would allow the stroke team to be available within a few minutes to care for stroke victims. METHODS: We connected all beepers (pocket pagers) of stroke team members to a common access number and instructed the emergency staff to activate that number immediately upon arrival of a stroke victim. We monitored the response time and treatment interval for patients who were treated after this system was activated (Code Strokepatients) during the first 3 months of its availability and compared the results to those of patients seen for similar reasons during the study period but without the use of Code Stroke (control patients). RESULTS: A total of 12 Code Strokepatients were available for analysis, representing 12% of all patients (n = 98) seen in the emergency department for ischemic stroke during the study period. The remaining 86 patients constituted the control group. The mean time to evaluation of a Code Strokepatient by a stroke team member was 4.8 minutes (range, 2 to 7 minutes), and the mean time to treatment institution was 30 minutes (range, 10 to 120 minutes). There were significant differences between the consultation intervals in the two groups (P < .05). There was only a trend of a difference between treatment institution intervals (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to shorten inhospital treatment delays by instituting rapid-response systems within individual institutions.
Authors: S Perez-Patrigeon; A Camiro-Zúñiga; M R Jaramillo-Jante; P F Belaunzarán-Zamudio; B Crabtree-Ramírez; L E Soto-Ramírez; J J Calva; C Hernández-León; J L Mosqueda-Gómez; S Navarro-Alvarez; J G Sierra-Madero Journal: HIV Med Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Amy C Mecozzi; Devin L Brown; Lynda D Lisabeth; William G Barsan; Robert Silbergleit; Susan L Hickenbottom; Phillip A Scott; Lewis B Morgenstern Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 3.532