Dexter L. Morris

Reducing delay in seeking treatment by patients with acute coronary syndrome and stroke: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Stroke Council

Patient delay in seeking treatment for acute coronary syndrome and stroke symptoms is the major factor limiting delivery of definitive treatment in these conditions. Despite decades of research and public education campaigns aimed at decreasing patient delay times, most patients still do not seek treatment in a timely manner. In this scientific statement, we summarize the evidence that (1) demonstrates the benefits of early treatment, (2) describes the extent of the problem of patient delay, (3) identifies the factors related to patient delay in seeking timely treatment, and (4) reveals the inadequacies of our current approaches to decreasing patient delay. Finally, we offer suggestions for clinical practice and future research.

Prehospital and Emergency Department Delays After Acute Stroke The Genentech Stroke Presentation Survey

Background and Purpose Patient delays in seeking treatment for stroke and delays within the Emergency Department (ED) are major factors in the lack of use of thrombolytic therapy for stroke. The Genentech Stroke Presentation Survey was a multicentered prospective registry of patients with acute stroke. The study was designed to characterize prehospital delays and delays within the ED. Methods Patients with stroke symptoms presenting to 48 EDs participating in a clinical trial of acute stroke therapy were enrolled prospectively. A 1-page data form was completed from patient interviews and medical records. Results A total of 1207 subjects were entered into the study. Ninety-four percent of the 721 subjects with complete data had a diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack, 13% were black, 50% were female, and 67% were aged >65 years. The median time from symptom onset to ED arrival was 2.6 (interquartile range 1.2 to 6.3) hours. The median time from ED arrival until CT scan completion was 1.1 (0.7 to 1.8) hours, and the total delay time (symptom onset until CT scan completion) had a median of 4.0 (2.3 to 8.3) hours. Patients who arrived by emergency medical services had significantly shorter prehospital delay times and times to CT scan. Age, race, sex, and educational level did not appear to affect prehospital delay times. Conclusions Despite its limitations, this large geographically diverse study strongly suggests that the use of emergency medical services is an important modifiable determinant of delay time for the treatment of acute stroke.

Determinants of Use of Emergency Medical Services in a Population With Stroke Symptoms: The Second Delay in Accessing Stroke Healthcare (DASH II) Study

Background and Purpose With the advent of time-dependent thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke, it has become increasingly important for stroke patients to arrive at the hospital quickly. This study investigates the association between the use of emergency medical services (EMS) and delay time among individuals with stroke symptoms and examines the predictors of EMS use. Methods The Second Delay in Accessing Stroke Healthcare Study (DASH II) was a prospective study of 617 individuals arriving at emergency departments in Denver, Colo, Chapel Hill, NC, and Greenville, SC, with stroke symptoms. Results EMS use was associated with decreased prehospital and in-hospital delay. Those who used EMS had a median prehospital delay time of 2.85 hours compared with 4.03 hours for those who did not use EMS (P =0.002). Older individuals were more likely to use EMS (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 for each 5-year increase, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.29), as were individuals who expressed a high sense of urgency about their symptoms (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.62). Knowledge of stroke symptoms was not associated with increased EMS use (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98). Patients were more likely to use EMS if someone other than the patient first identified that there was a problem (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.44). Conclusions Interventions aimed at increasing EMS use among stroke patients need to stress the urgency of stroke symptoms and the importance of calling 911 and need to be broad-based, encompassing not only those at high risk for stroke but also their friends and family.

Prehospital and In-Hospital Delays in Acute Stroke Care

Current guidelines emphasize the need for early stroke care. However, significant delays occur during both the prehospital and in-hospital phases of care, making many patients ineligible for stroke therapies. The purpose of this study was to systematically review and summarize the existing scientific literature reporting prehospital and in-hospital stroke delay times in order to assist future delivery of effective interventions to reduce delay time and to raise several key issues which future studies should consider. A comprehensive search was performed to find all published journal articles which reported on the prehospital or in-hospital delay time for stroke, including intervention studies. Since 1981, at least 48 unique reports of prehospital delay time for patients with stroke, transient ischemic attack, or stroke-like symptoms were published from 17 different countries. In the majority of studies which reported median delay times, the median time from symptom onset to arrival in the emergency department was between 3 and 6 h. The in-hospital times from emergency department arrival to being seen by an emergency department physician, initiation and interpretation of a computed tomography (CT) scan, and being seen by a neurologist were consistently longer than recommended. However, prehospital delay comprised the majority of time from symptom onset to potential treatment. Definitions and methodologies differed across studies, making direct comparisons difficult. This review suggests that the majority of stroke patients are unlikely to arrive at the emergency department and receive a diagnostic evaluation in under 3 h. Further studies of stroke delay and corresponding interventions are needed, with careful attention to definitions and methodologies.

A Comprehensive Review of Prehospital and In-hospital Delay Times in Acute Stroke Care

The purpose of this study was to systematically review and summarize prehospital and in-hospital stroke evaluation and treatment delay times. We identified 123 unique peer-reviewed studies published from 1981 to 2007 of prehospital and in-hospital delay time for evaluation and treatment of patients with stroke, transient ischemic attack, or stroke-like symptoms. Based on studies of 65 different population groups, the weighted Poisson regression indicated a 6·0% annual decline (P<0·001) in hours/year for prehospital delay, defined from symptom onset to emergency department arrival. For in-hospital delay, the weighted Poisson regression models indicated no meaningful changes in delay time from emergency department arrival to emergency department evaluation (3·1%, P=0·49 based on 12 population groups). There was a 10·2% annual decline in hours/year from emergency department arrival to neurology evaluation or notification (P=0·23 based on 16 population groups) and a 10·7% annual decline in hours/year for delay time from emergency department arrival to initiation of computed tomography (P=0·11 based on 23 population groups). Only one study reported on times from arrival to computed tomography scan interpretation, two studies on arrival to drug administration, and no studies on arrival to transfer to an in-patient setting, precluding generalizations. Prehospital delay continues to contribute the largest proportion of delay time. The next decade provides opportunities to establish more effective community-based interventions worldwide. It will be crucial to have effective stroke surveillance systems in place to better understand and improve both prehospital and in-hospital delays for acute stroke care.

Calling emergency medical services for acute stroke: a study of 9-1-1 tapes.

Objective. To obtain a better understanding of how stroke events are communicated to 9-1-1 telecommunicators, andhow telecommunicators andemergency medical services (EMS) personnel respond to such calls. Methods. The authors identified 104 patients with a hospital discharge diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack who were transported to hospital by ambulance in two North Carolina counties during 1999 and2000. Ambulance call reports were abstracted andlinked to 9-1-1 call center audiotapes, which were transcribed andverified. Results. Of the 104 calls, 44 were made by medical personnel, 38 by a family member, eight by a bystander or neighbor, five undetermined, andthree by other nonmedical personnel. In only six instances (6%) was the call placed by the patient. The most common symptoms reported were altered mental status (40%), trouble walking (32%), impaired speech (27%), andabnormal breathing (27%). Although the word “stroke” was often used (45%), 9-1-1 telecommunicators classified the calls as a stroke in only 31% of cases. However, in the majority of cases (79%), paramedics were dispatched at the highest priority. The median time from dispatch of EMS to patient arrival at the hospital was 41 minutes, approximately half of which was spent at the scene. Conclusion. Although typical stroke symptoms are commonly described, calls are often not classified as “strokes” by telecommunicators. Nevertheless, because of the symptoms reported during the calls, the majority of cases are treated as high priority by telecommunicators.

Double-Blind, Multicenter Trial to Compare the Efficacy of Intramuscular Dihydroergotamine Plus Hydroxyzine Versus Intramuscular Meperidine Plus Hydroxyzine for the Emergency Department Treatment of Acute Migraine Headache☆☆☆★★★

STUDY OBJECTIVE To evaluate intramuscular dihydroergotamine in direct comparison with opioid analgesia in the treatment of acute migraine headache. METHODS This was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind trial performed in the emergency departments of 11 general hospitals in the United States. One hundred seventy-one patients between the ages of 18 and 60 years who presented to the ED with acute migraine headache were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1 mg dihydroergotamine (DHE) or 1.5 mg/kg meperidine (MEP) by intramuscular injection. The anti-nauseant hydroxyzine (H) was coadministered in both treatment groups. RESULTS One hundred fifty-six patients were evaluable. Treatment groups were comparable in sample size, demographics, and baseline measurements of headache pain. Reduction of headache pain as measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale was 41+/-33 mm (53.5% reduction) for the DHE group, and 45+/-30 mm (55.7% reduction) for the MEP group at 60 minutes after treatment (difference=2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -10%, 14.5%; P=.81). Reduction in the severity of nausea and improvement in functional ability were similar between treatment groups. Central nervous system adverse events were less common in the DHE group (DHE 23.5% versus MEP 37.6%, difference-14.1%: 95% CI -28%, 0%). In particular, dizziness was reported less commonly with DHE than MEP (2% versus 15%, difference=-13%: 95% CI -21%, -5%). CONCLUSION In this prospective, double-blind trial of a convenience sample of ED patients randomly assigned to one of two treatment regimens, DHE and MEP were comparable therapies for acute migraine. The use of DHE avoids several problems associated with opioid analgesia, including dizziness.

Reducing Delay in Seeking Treatment by Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Stroke: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Stroke Council*

Patient delay in seeking treatment for acute coronary syndrome and stroke symptoms is the major factor limiting delivery of definitive treatment in these conditions. Despite decades of research and public education campaigns aimed at decreasing patient delay times, most patients still do not seek treatment in a timely manner. In this scientific statement, we summarize the evidence that (1) demonstrates the benefits of early treatment, (2) describes the extent of the problem of patient delay, (3) identifies the factors related to patient delay in seeking timely treatment, and (4) reveals the inadequacies of our current approaches to decreasing patient delay. Finally, we offer suggestions for clinical practice and future research.

A comparison of emergency medical services times for stroke and myocardial infarction

Objective. Since stroke symptoms are often vague, and acute therapies for stroke are more recently available, it has been hypothesized that stroke patients may not be treated with the same urgency as myocardial infarction (MI) patients by emergency medical services (EMS). To examine this hypothesis, EMS transport times were examined for both stroke and MI patients who used a paramedic-level, county-based EMS system for transportation to a single hospital during 1999. Methods. Patients were first identified by their hospital discharge diagnosis as stroke (ICD-9 430–436, n = 50) or MI (ICD-9 410, n = 55). Trip sheets with corresponding transport times were retrospectively obtained from the 911 center. A separate analysis was performed on patients identified by dispatchers with a chief complaint of stroke (n = 85) or MI (n = 372). Results. Comparing stroke and MI patients identified by ICD-9 codes, mean EMS transport times in minutes did not meaningfully differ with respect to dispatch to scene arrival time (8.3 vs 8.9, p = 0.61), scene time (19.5 vs 21.4, p = 0.23), and transport time (13.7 vs 16.2, p = 0.10). Mean total call times in minutes from dispatch to hospital arrival were similar between stroke and MI patients (41.5 vs 46.4, p = 0.22). Results were similar when comparing patients identified by dispatchers with a chief complaint indicative of stroke or MI. Conclusion. In this single county, EMS response times were not different between stroke and MI patients. Replication in other EMS settings is needed to confirm these findings.

Concordance of Stroke Symptom Onset Time: The Second Delay in Accessing Stroke Healthcare (DASH II) Study

PURPOSE This study examines the concordance between symptom onset obtained during an interview in the emergency department (ED) compared to that recorded in the medical record among patients with stroke-like symptoms and characterizes the frequency of missing symptom onset information in the medical record. METHODS Interviews with patients presenting with signs and symptoms of acute stroke were completed in the ED of seven hospitals to determine symptom onset time. Symptom onset recorded in the medical record was abstracted after the patient was discharged. RESULTS Among the patients who presented to the ED with stroke-like symptoms, 60.2% overall and 61.9% among stroke patients had a symptom onset date and time recorded in the medical record. The Pearson correlation of prehospital delay time, comparing symptom onset obtained by interview to that obtained by the medical record was 0.80 and among stroke patients was 0.91. Concordance of prehospital delay time for stroke within +/- 1 h between the interview and the medical record was 60.1%. For stroke patients, concordance was more likely for those who had higher functional status prior to the acute episode. CONCLUSIONS Symptom onset time was often missing from the medical record. Standardized and systematic recording of delay time in the medical record could increase its utility as a clinical measure and as a research tool for acute stroke.