Julia Ting Bu, Dawn M Meyer, Benjamin Shifflett, Brett C Meyer
{"title":"INTERP:组织凝血酶原激活剂评估所需的口译员要求及由此产生的绩效:回顾性审查。","authors":"Julia Ting Bu, Dawn M Meyer, Benjamin Shifflett, Brett C Meyer","doi":"10.1186/s42466-024-00319-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the influence of interpreter service needs (IS) on rt-PA administration time metrics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from Comprehensive Stroke Center database (January 2011- April 1, 2021) and EMR.</p><p><strong>Inclusion: </strong>Subjects for whom a \"stroke code\" was activated. Excluded in-house strokes. Baseline characteristics, frequency of rt-PA, rt-PA exclusions and time metrics, NIHSS were compared between patients who did or did not require IS. Analyses utilized ANOVA, t-Test, Brown-Mood Median Test, or Pearson's Chi-squared test as appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2,191 patients with stroke code activations, 81 had a documented need for IS. Rt-PA was administered in 9 IS and 358 non-IS patients. Median baseline NIHSS was higher in rt-PA group (9±8 vs 3±9, p<0.005). In IS patients, there were no differences in baseline characteristics between those who received rt-PA and those who did not, including median score for NIHSS aphasia (0±1 vs 0±1, p = 0.46). There were no rt-PA rate differences between those that did not and did require IS (17% vs 11%, p = 0.22). In patients with final diagnosis acute ischemic stroke, patients excluded from rt-PA solely due to being out of the window were more likely to have required IS (59% vs 35%, p = 0.003). Time metrics of rt-PA administration were not different in IS patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference in frequency or time metrics of rt-PA administration in patients requiring interpreter services during an acute stroke code. AIS patients requiring an interpreter were more likely to be excluded from rt-PA on the basis of time.</p>","PeriodicalId":94156,"journal":{"name":"Neurological research and practice","volume":"6 1","pages":"31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11170910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"INTERP: Interpreter requirements needed for tissue plasminogen activator evaluations and resulting performance: a retrospective review.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Ting Bu, Dawn M Meyer, Benjamin Shifflett, Brett C Meyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42466-024-00319-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the influence of interpreter service needs (IS) on rt-PA administration time metrics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from Comprehensive Stroke Center database (January 2011- April 1, 2021) and EMR.</p><p><strong>Inclusion: </strong>Subjects for whom a \\\"stroke code\\\" was activated. Excluded in-house strokes. Baseline characteristics, frequency of rt-PA, rt-PA exclusions and time metrics, NIHSS were compared between patients who did or did not require IS. Analyses utilized ANOVA, t-Test, Brown-Mood Median Test, or Pearson's Chi-squared test as appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2,191 patients with stroke code activations, 81 had a documented need for IS. Rt-PA was administered in 9 IS and 358 non-IS patients. Median baseline NIHSS was higher in rt-PA group (9±8 vs 3±9, p<0.005). In IS patients, there were no differences in baseline characteristics between those who received rt-PA and those who did not, including median score for NIHSS aphasia (0±1 vs 0±1, p = 0.46). There were no rt-PA rate differences between those that did not and did require IS (17% vs 11%, p = 0.22). In patients with final diagnosis acute ischemic stroke, patients excluded from rt-PA solely due to being out of the window were more likely to have required IS (59% vs 35%, p = 0.003). Time metrics of rt-PA administration were not different in IS patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference in frequency or time metrics of rt-PA administration in patients requiring interpreter services during an acute stroke code. AIS patients requiring an interpreter were more likely to be excluded from rt-PA on the basis of time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94156,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurological research and practice\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11170910/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurological research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-024-00319-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurological research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-024-00319-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
INTERP: Interpreter requirements needed for tissue plasminogen activator evaluations and resulting performance: a retrospective review.
Aim: To examine the influence of interpreter service needs (IS) on rt-PA administration time metrics.
Methods: Retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from Comprehensive Stroke Center database (January 2011- April 1, 2021) and EMR.
Inclusion: Subjects for whom a "stroke code" was activated. Excluded in-house strokes. Baseline characteristics, frequency of rt-PA, rt-PA exclusions and time metrics, NIHSS were compared between patients who did or did not require IS. Analyses utilized ANOVA, t-Test, Brown-Mood Median Test, or Pearson's Chi-squared test as appropriate.
Results: Of 2,191 patients with stroke code activations, 81 had a documented need for IS. Rt-PA was administered in 9 IS and 358 non-IS patients. Median baseline NIHSS was higher in rt-PA group (9±8 vs 3±9, p<0.005). In IS patients, there were no differences in baseline characteristics between those who received rt-PA and those who did not, including median score for NIHSS aphasia (0±1 vs 0±1, p = 0.46). There were no rt-PA rate differences between those that did not and did require IS (17% vs 11%, p = 0.22). In patients with final diagnosis acute ischemic stroke, patients excluded from rt-PA solely due to being out of the window were more likely to have required IS (59% vs 35%, p = 0.003). Time metrics of rt-PA administration were not different in IS patients.
Conclusions: There was no significant difference in frequency or time metrics of rt-PA administration in patients requiring interpreter services during an acute stroke code. AIS patients requiring an interpreter were more likely to be excluded from rt-PA on the basis of time.