Impact of adherence to key performance indicators on mortality among patients managed for ischemic stroke

Clinical and organisational quality indicators for the optimal management of acute ischaemic stroke in the era of thrombectomy: a scoping review and expert consensus study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to identify clinical and organisational quality indicators conducive to the optimal interdisciplinary management of acute-phase ischaemic stroke.

METHOD

A scoping review based on the six-step methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley (2005) was conducted including a Delphi process with an experts committee.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic search complete, Cochrane Library databases, in addition to Google Scholar and Google were searched through January 2015 to February 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

French and English references, dealing with clinical and organisational indicators for the management and optimal care of adults with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

After duplicate removal, all publications were checked for title and abstract. The full text of articles meeting the inclusion criteria was reviewed. Two independent reviewers performed 10% of the study selection and data extraction. Data collected underwent descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 4343 references identified, 31 were included in the scoping review. About 360 indicators were identified and preliminary screened by two stroke experts. Fifty-four indicators were evaluated for validity, relevance and feasibility by a committee of experts including a partner patient using a Delphi method. A total of 34 indicators were selected and classified based on dimensions of care performance such as accessibility of services, quality of care and resource optimisation. Safety accounted for about one-third of the indicators, while there were few indicators for sustainability, equity of access and responsiveness.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review shows there are many clinical and organisational indicators in the literature that are relevant, valid and feasible for improving the quality of care in the acute phase of ischaemic stroke. Future research is essential to highlight clinical and organisational practices in the acute phase.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

https://osf.io/qc4mk/.

Variation in stroke care at the hospital level: A cross-sectional multicenter study

Introduction

Stroke is one of the leading causes of mortality and disability. Improving patient outcomes can be achieved by improving stroke care and adherence to guidelines. Since wide variation in adherence rates for stroke guidelines still exists, we aimed to describe and compare stroke care variability within Belgian hospitals.

Materials and methods

An observational, multicenter study was performed in 29 Belgian hospitals. We retrospectively collected patient characteristics, quality indicators, and time metrics from the last 30 consecutive patients per hospital, diagnosed with ischemic stroke in 2019 with structured questionnaires. Mean adherence ratios (%) ± SD (minimum – maximum) were calculated.

Results

We analyzed 870 patient records from 29 hospitals. Results showed large inter- and intrahospitals variations in adherence for various indicators. Almost all the patients received brain imaging (99.7%) followed by admission at a stroke unit in 82.9% of patients. Of patients not receiving thrombolysis, 92.5% of patients were started on antithrombotic drugs. Indicators with moderate median adherence but large interhospital variability were glycemia monitoring [82.3 ± 16.7% (26.7–100.0%)], performing clinical neurological examination and documentation of stroke severity [63.1 ± 36.8% (0–100%)], and screening for activities of daily living [51.1 ± 40.3% (0.0–100.0%)]. Other indicators lacked adequate adherence: swallowing function screening [37.0 ± 30.4% (0.0–93.3%)], depression screening [20.2 ± 35.8% (0.0–100%)], and timely body temperature measurement [15.1 ± 17.0% (0.0–60%)].

Conclusion

We identified high adherence to guidelines for some indicators, but lower rates with large interhospital variability for other recommendations also based on robust evidence. Improvement strategies should be implemented to improve the latter.