Stroke teams and acute stroke pathways: one emergency department's two-year experience

Reduction in IV t-PA Door to Needle Times Using an Acute Stroke Triage Pathway

Objective:

To determine the effectiveness of an Acute Stroke Triage Pathway in reducing door to needle times in acute stroke treatment with IV t-PA.

Background:

A previous study at our tertiary referral centre, examining IV t-PA door to needle times, was completed in 2000. The median door to needle time was beyond the recommended National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) standard of 60 minutes. In November 2001, an Acute Stroke Triage Pathway was introduced in the emergency room (ER) to address this issue. The goal of this pathway was to rapidly identify patients eligible for treatment for IV t-PA, so that CT scans and lab studies could be arranged immediately upon ER arrival. Our hypothesis was that the Triage Pathway would shorten door to CT and door to needle times.

Design/Methods:

Using retrospective data, pre (n=87) and post (n=47) triage pathway times were compared. The door to CT time was reduced by 11 minutes (p=0.015) and door to needle time was reduced by 18 minutes (p=0.0036) in a subgroup of patients that presented directly to our hospital.

Conclusions:

These results indicate that the Acute Stroke Triage Pathway is effective in reducing Door to CT and Door to Needle Times in patients presenting directly to our ER. However, a majority of treatment times were still beyond NINDS recommendations. Stroke Centers require periodic review of their efficiency to ensure that target times are being obtained and may benefit from the use of an Acute Stroke Triage Pathway.

The impact of clinical nurse specialists on clinical pathways in the application of evidence-based practice

The purpose of this article was to address the call for evidence-based practice through the development of clinical pathways and to assert the role of the clinical nurse specialist (CNS) as a champion in clinical pathway implementation. In the current health care system, providing quality of care while maintaining cost-effectiveness is an ever-growing battle that institutions face. The CNS's role is central to meeting these demands. An extensive literature review has been conducted to validate the use of clinical pathways as a means of improving patient outcomes. This literature also suggests that clinical pathways must be developed, implemented, and evaluated utilizing validated methods including the use of best practice standards. Execution of clinical pathways should include a clinical expert, who has the ability to look at the system as a whole and can facilitate learning and change by employing a multitude of competencies while maintaining a sphere of influence over patient and families, nurses, and the system. The CNS plays a pivotal role in influencing effective clinical pathway development, implementation, utilization, and ongoing evaluation to ensure improved patient outcomes and reduced costs. This article expands upon the call for evidence-based practice through the utilization of clinical pathways to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs and stresses the importance of the CNS as a primary figure for ensuring proper pathway development, implementation, and ongoing evaluation.

In-hospital care pathways for stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke care pathways have the potential to promote organised and efficient patient care that is based on best evidence and guidelines, but evidence to support their use is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effects of care pathways, compared with standard medical care, among patients with acute stroke who had been admitted to hospital.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched in June 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (1975 to June 2003), EMBASE (1980 to June 2003), CINAHL (1982 to June 2003), ISI Proceedings: Science & Technology (1990 to November 2003), and HealthSTAR (1994 to May 2001). We also handsearched the Journal of Integrated Care Pathways (2001 to 2003), formerly Journal of Managed Care (1997 to 1998) and Journal of Integrated Care (1998 to 2001). Reference lists of articles were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies that compared care pathway care with standard medical care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer selected studies for inclusion and the other independently checked the decisions. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies. One reviewer extracted the data and the other checked the extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomised controlled trials (340 patients) and 12 non-randomised studies (4081 patients) were included. There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the analysis of many of the outcomes. We found no significant difference between care pathway and control groups in terms of death or discharge destination. Patients managed with a care pathway were: (a) more dependent at discharge (P = 0.04); (b) less likely to suffer a urinary tract infection (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.79); (c) less likely to be readmitted (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.39); and (d) more likely to have neuroimaging (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.25). Evidence from randomised trials suggested that patient satisfaction and quality of life were significantly lower in the care pathway group (P = 0.02 and P < 0.005 respectively).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of stroke care pathways may be associated with positive and negative effects. Since most of the results have been derived from non-randomised studies, they are likely to be influenced by potential biases and confounding factors. There is currently insufficient supporting evidence to justify the routine implementation of care pathways for acute stroke management or stroke rehabilitation.

In-hospital care pathways for stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke care pathways have the potential to promote organised and efficient patient care that is based on best evidence and guidelines, but evidence to support their use is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effects of care pathways, compared with standard medical care, among patients with acute stroke who had been admitted to hospital.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched in June 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (1975 to June 2003), EMBASE (1980 to June 2003), CINAHL (1982 to June 2003), ISI Proceedings: Science & Technology (1990 to November 2003), and HealthSTAR (1994 to May 2001). We also handsearched the Journal of Integrated Care Pathways (2001 to 2003), formerly Journal of Managed Care (1997 to 1998) and Journal of Integrated Care (1998 to 2001). Reference lists of articles were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies that compared care pathway care with standard medical care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer selected studies for inclusion and the other independently checked the decisions. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies. One reviewer extracted the data and the other checked the extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomised controlled trials (340 patients) and 12 non-randomised studies (4081 patients) were included. There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the analysis of many of the outcomes. We found no significant difference between care pathway and control groups in terms of death or discharge destination. Patients managed with a care pathway were: (a) more dependent at discharge (P = 0.04); (b) less likely to suffer a urinary tract infection (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.79); (c) less likely to be readmitted (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.39); and (d) more likely to have neuroimaging (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.25). Evidence from randomised trials suggested that patient satisfaction and quality of life were significantly lower in the care pathway group (P = 0.02 and P < 0.005 respectively).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of stroke care pathways may be associated with positive and negative effects. Since most of the results have been derived from non-randomised studies, they are likely to be influenced by potential biases and confounding factors. There is currently insufficient supporting evidence to justify the routine implementation of care pathways for acute stroke management or stroke rehabilitation.