Melanie Turner

Stroke patients admitted within normal working hours are more likely to achieve process standards and to have better outcomes

Background The presence of a ‘weekend’ effect has been shown across a range of medical conditions, but has not been consistently observed for patients with stroke. Aims We investigated the impact of admission time on a range of process and outcome measures after stroke. Methods Using routine data from National Scottish data sets (2005–2013), time of admission was categorised into weekday, weeknight and weekend/public holidays. The main process measures were swallow screen on day of admission (day 0), brain scan (day 0 or 1), aspirin (day 0 or 1), admission to stroke unit (day 0 or 1), and thrombolysis administration. After case-mix adjustment, multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the OR for mortality and discharge to home/usual place of residence. Results There were 52 276 index stroke events. Compared to weekday, the adjusted OR (95%CI) for early stroke unit admission was 0.81 (0.77 to 0.85) for weeknight admissions and 0.64 (0.61 to 0.67) for weekend/holiday admissions; early brain scan 1.30 (0.87 to 1.94) and 1.43 (0.95 to 2.18); same day swallow screen 0.86 (0.81 to 0.91) and 0.85 (0.81 to 0.90); thrombolysis 0.85 (0.75 to 0.97) and 0.85 (0.75 to 0.97), respectively. Seven-day mortality, 30-day mortality and 30-day discharge for weekend admission compared to weekday was 1.17 (1.05 to 1.30); 1.08 (1.00 to 1.17); and 0.90 (0.85 to 0.95), respectively. Conclusions Patients with stroke admitted out of hours and at weekends or public holidays are less likely to be managed according to current guidelines. They experience poorer short-term outcomes than those admitted during normal working hours, after correcting for known independent predictors of outcome and early mortality.

Implementing a Simple Care Bundle Is Associated With Improved Outcomes in a National Cohort of Patients With Ischemic Stroke

Background and Purpose— Further research is needed to better identify the methods of evaluating processes and outcomes of stroke care. We investigated whether achieving 4 evidence-based components of a care bundle in a Scotland-wide population with ischemic stroke is associated with 30-day and 6-month outcomes. Methods— Using national datasets, we looked at the effect of 4 standards (stroke unit entry on calendar day of admission [day 0] or day following [day 1], aspirin on day 0 or day 1, scan on day 0, and swallow screen recorded on day 0) on mortality and discharge to usual residence, at 30 days and 6 months. Data were corrected for the validated 6 simple variables, admission year, and hospital-level random effects. Results— A total of 36 055 patients were included. Achieving stroke unit admission, swallow screen, and aspirin standards were associated with reduced 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.82 [0.75–0.90], 0.88 [0.77–0.99], and 0.39 [0.35–0.43], respectively). Thirty-day all-cause mortality was higher when fewer standards were achieved, from 0 versus 4 (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 2.95 [1.91–4.55]) to 3 versus 4 (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.21 [1.09–1.34]). This effect persisted at 6 months. When less than the full care bundle was achieved, discharge to usual residence was less likely at 6 months (3 versus 4 standards; adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.91 [0.85–0.98]). Conclusions— Achieving a care bundle for ischemic stroke is associated with reduced mortality at 30 days and 6 months and increased likelihood of discharge to usual residence at 6 months.

The impact of stroke unit care on outcome in a Scottish stroke population, taking into account case mix and selection bias

Background and aim Randomised trials indicate that stroke unit care reduces morbidity and mortality after stroke. Similar results have been seen in observational studies but many have not corrected for selection bias or independent predictors of outcome. We evaluated the effect of stroke unit compared with general ward care on outcomes after stroke in Scotland, adjusting for case mix by incorporating the six simple variables (SSV) model, also taking into account selection bias and stroke subtype. Methods We used routine data from National Scottish datasets for acute stroke patients admitted between 2005 and 2011. Patients who died within 3 days of admission were excluded from analysis. The main outcome measures were survival and discharge home. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the OR for survival, and adjustment was made for the effect of the SSV model and for early mortality. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard of death within 365 days. Results There were 41 692 index stroke events; 79% were admitted to a stroke unit at some point during their hospital stay and 21% were cared for in a general ward. Using the SSV model, we obtained a receiver operated curve of 0.82 (SE 0.002) for mortality at 6 months. The adjusted OR for survival at 7 days was 3.11 (95% CI 2.71 to 3.56) and at 1 year 1.43 (95% CI 1.34 to 1.54) while the adjusted OR for being discharged home was 1.19 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.28) for stroke unit care. Conclusions In routine practice, stroke unit admission is associated with a greater likelihood of discharge home and with lower mortality up to 1 year, after correcting for known independent predictors of outcome, and excluding early non-modifiable mortality.

Agreement between routine electronic hospital discharge and Scottish Stroke Care Audit (SSCA) data in identifying stroke in the Scottish population

BackgroundIn Scotland all non-obstetric, non-psychiatric acute inpatient and day case stays are recorded by an administrative hospital discharge database, the Scottish Morbidity Record (SMR01). The Scottish Stroke Care Audit (SSCA) collects data from all hospitals managing acute stroke in Scotland to support and improve quality of stroke care. The aim was to assess whether there were discrepancies between these data sources for admissions from 2010 to 2011.MethodsRecords were matched when admission dates from the two data sources were within two days of each other and if an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code of I61, I63, I64, or G45 was in the primary or secondary diagnosis field on SMR01. We also carried out a linkage analysis followed by a case-note review within one hospital in Scotland.ResultsThere were a total of 22 416 entries on SSCA and 22 200 entries on SMR01. The concordance between SSCA and SMR01 was 16 823. SSCA contained 5593 strokes that were not present in SMR01, whereas SMR01 contained 185 strokes that were not present in SSCA. In the case-note review the concordance was 531, with SSCA containing 157 strokes that were not present in SMR01 and SMR01 containing 32 strokes that were not present in SSCA.ConclusionsWhen identifying strokes, hospital administrative discharge databases should be used with caution. Our results demonstrate that SSCA most accurately represents the number of strokes occurring in Scotland. This resource is useful for determining the provision of adequate patient care, stroke services and resources, and as a tool for research.

A cancer geography paradox? Poorer cancer outcomes with longer travelling times to healthcare facilities despite prompter diagnosis and treatment: a data-linkage study

Background:Rurality and distance from cancer treatment centres have been shown to negatively impact cancer outcomes, but the mechanisms remain obscure.Methods:We analysed the impact of travel time to key healthcare facilities and mainland/island residency on the cancer diagnostic pathway (treatment within 62 days of referral, and within 31 days of diagnosis) and 1-year mortality using a data-linkage study with 12 339 patients.Results:After controlling for important confounders, mainland patients with more than 60 min of travelling time to their cancer treatment centre ((OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.25–1.61) and island dwellers (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09–1.59) were more likely to commence cancer treatment within 62 days of general practitioner (GP) referral and within 31 days of their cancer diagnosis compared with those living within 15 min. Island-dweller patients were more likely to have their diagnosis and treatment started on the same or next day (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.31–2.25). Increased travelling time to a cancer treatment centre was associated with increased mortality to 1 year (30–59 min (HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.05–1.41), >60 min (HR 1.18; 95% CI 1.03–1.36), island dweller (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.97–1.41).Conclusions:Island dwelling and greater mainland travel burden was associated with more rapid cancer diagnosis and treatment following GP referral even after adjustment for advanced disease; however, these patients also experienced a survival disadvantage compared with those living nearer. Cancer services may need to be better configured to suit the different needs of dispersed populations.

Does emergency presentation of cancer represent poor performance in primary care? Insights from a novel analysis of linked primary and secondary care data

Background:People diagnosed with cancer following emergency presentation have poorer short-term survival. To what extent this signifies a missed opportunity for earlier diagnosis in primary care remains unclear as little detailed data exist on the patient/general practitioner interaction beforehand.Methods:Analysis of primary care and regional data for 1802 cancer patients from Northeast Scotland. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for patient and GP practice predictors of emergency presentation. Qualitative context coding of primary care interaction before emergency presentation.Results:Emergency presentations equalled 20% (n=365). Twenty-eight per cent had no relevant prior GP contact. Of those with prior GP contact 30% were admitted while waiting to be seen in secondary care, and 19% were missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Associated predictors: no prior GP contact (OR=3.89; CI 95% 2.14–7.09); having lung (OR=23.24; 95% CI 7.92–68.21), colorectal (OR=18.49; CI 95% 6.60–51.82) and upper GI cancer (OR=18.97; CI 95% 6.08–59.23); ethnicity (OR=2.78; CI 95% 1.27–6.06).Conclusions:Our novel approach has revealed that emergency cancer presentation is more complex than previously thought. Patient delay, prolonged referral pathways and missed opportunities by GPs all contribute, but emergency presentation can also represent effective care. Resources should be used proportionately to raise public and GP awareness and improve post-referral pathways.

Stroke: Stroke outcomes after 90 days—out of sight, out of mind?

A recent study has found that one in six people who are independent at 3 months after stroke deteriorate and need assistance by 12 months. Older women with comorbidities, and patients not given appropriate secondary stroke prevention were most at risk. Anticipation and prevention of deterioration could help reduce the later burden of stroke.