Toby Gropen

Factors related to the sensitivity of emergency medical service impression of stroke.

Abstract Objectives. To examine factors related to sensitivity of emergency medical services (EMS) stroke impression. Methods. We reviewed ambulance and hospital records of all patients transported to Long Island College Hospital between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2011 by the hospital-based EMS with a discharge diagnosis of stroke or a confounding diagnosis, and compared EMS impression to hospital discharge diagnosis. We examined relationships between EMS diagnostic sensitivity and age, gender, ethnicity, NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS), motor signs, aphasia, neglect, lesion side, circulation, stroke type, EMS provider level, and documented Cincinnati Pre-hospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) with contingency analysis and logistic regression. Results. Stroke was validated in 18% (56/310) of patients and 50% (28/56) of these were missed by EMS. EMS diagnostic sensitivity was 50% (95% CI: 36–64%), and was related to NIHSS quartile (p = 0.014), with higher sensitivities in 2nd (69%; 95% CI: 44–86%) and 3rd (75%; 95% CI: 47–91%) vs. 1st (20%; 95% CI: 7–45%) and 4th (45%; 95% CI: 21–72%) quartiles, motor signs (62 vs. 14%, p = 0.002), and documented CPSS (84 vs. 32%, p = 0.0002). EMS impression was independently related to NIHSS quartile (1st vs. 2nd adjusted OR = 9.61, 1.13–122.03, p = 0.038) and CPSS (adjusted OR = 12.58, 2.22–111.06, p = 0.003). Conclusion. Stroke was missed more frequently when CPSS was not documented, in patients without motor signs, and in patients with moderate–severe stroke. The sensitivity of prehospital screening for patients with moderate–severe stroke might be improved by including additional non-motor signs and by stressing indications for when screens should be performed.

Derivation and Validation of the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment and Comparison of Large Vessel Occlusion Scales

BACKGROUND This study aims to develop a simple scale to identify patients with prehospital stroke with large vessel occlusion (LVO), without losing sensitivity for other stroke types. METHODS The Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment (EMSA) was derived from the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) items and validated for prediction of LVO in a separate cohort. We compared the EMSA with the 3-item stroke scale (3I-SS), Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Severity Scale (C-STAT), Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE) scale, and Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination (FAST-ED) for prediction of LVO and stroke. We surveyed paramedics to assess ease of use and interpretation of scales. RESULTS The combination of gaze preference, facial asymmetry, asymmetrical arm and leg drift, and abnormal speech or language yielded the EMSA. An EMSA less than 3, 75% sensitivity, and 50% specificity significantly reduced the likelihood of LVO (LR- = .489, 95% confidence interval .366-0.637) versus 3I-SS less than 4 (.866, .798-0.926). A normal EMSA, 93% sensitivity, and 47% specificity significantly reduced the likelihood of stroke (LR- = .142, .068-0.299) versus 3I-SS (.476, .330-0.688) and C-STAT (.858, .717-1.028). EMSA was rated easy to perform by 72% (13 of 18) of paramedics versus 67% (12 of 18) for FAST-ED and 6% (1 of 18) for RACE (χ2 = 27.25, P < .0001), and easy to interpret by 94% (17 of 18) versus 56% (10 of 18) for FAST-ED and 11% (2 of 18) for RACE (χ2 = 21.13, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS The EMSA has superior abilities to identify LVO versus 3I-SS and stroke versus 3I-SS and C-STAT. The EMSA has similar ability to triage patients with stroke compared with the FAST-ED and RACE, but is simpler to perform and interpret.

Description of a novel telemedicine-enabled comprehensive system of care: drip and ship plus drip and keep within a system of stroke care delivery.

United States (US) and worldwide telestroke programs frequently focus only on emergency room hyper-acute stroke management. This article describes a comprehensive, telemedicine-enabled, stroke care delivery system that combines “drip and ship” and “drip and keep” models with a comprehensive stroke center primary hub at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans, advanced stroke-capable regional hubs, and geographically-aligned, “stroke-ready” spokes. The primary hub provides vascular neurology expertise via telemedicine and monitors care for patients remaining at regional hubs and spokes using a multidisciplinary team approach. By 2014, primary hub telestroke consults grew to ≈1000/year with 16 min average door to consult initiation and 20 min to completion, and 29% of ischemic stroke patients received recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rtPA), increasing 275%. Most patients remained in hospitals close to home, but neurointensive care and interventional procedures were common reasons for primary hub transfer. Given the time sensitivity and expert consultation needed for complex acute stroke care delivery paradigms, telestroke programs are effective for fulfilling unmet care needs. Combining drip and ship and drip and keep management allows more patients to stay “local,” limiting primary hub transfer unless more advanced services are required. Post admission telestroke management at spokes increases personnel efficiency and can positively impact stroke outcomes.