支持急性卒中护理提供者的新分诊方案。

Q1 Medicine
Interventional Neurology Pub Date : 2018-04-01 Epub Date: 2018-03-14 DOI:10.1159/000486459
Haitham M Hussein, David C Anderson
{"title":"支持急性卒中护理提供者的新分诊方案。","authors":"Haitham M Hussein,&nbsp;David C Anderson","doi":"10.1159/000486459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We conducted an online survey to gauge the acceptance of sending acute stroke patients with suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO) directly to an endovascular-capable hospital (ECH) even if that means bypassing a closer alteplase-capable hospital (ACH) without endovascular capability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The survey was composed of two cases of acute stroke, one with cortical symptoms suggestive of LVO and the other without. In each case, responders were asked to choose between triaging to a closer ACH or an ECH that is further away and to provide an opinion regarding the maximum extra travel time they would tolerate if they chose the ECH. The survey was sent electronically to national groups of neurologists, emergency department (ED) physicians, emergency medical service (EMS) directors, and stroke coordinators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 320 responders from 44 states, most of them with 10 years or more of experience. Most of the responders, 72.5%, chose ECH for the LVO case, while 56% chose ACH for the non-LVO case. There were marked differences in responses by specialty: neurology strongly supported ECH for LVO and strongly supported ACH for non-LVO, most ED and EMS chose ECH for both cases, and stroke coordinators were the least supportive of bypassing ACH. Almost all groups agreed on 30 min as the acceptable extra transfer time to ECH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the survey responders, there is a broad acceptance of the idea of bypassing ACH and going straight to ECH when LVO is suspected; however, there is less agreement on triaging patients with non-LVO stroke.</p>","PeriodicalId":46280,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000486459","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Support of New Triage Protocol among Acute Stroke Care Providers.\",\"authors\":\"Haitham M Hussein,&nbsp;David C Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000486459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We conducted an online survey to gauge the acceptance of sending acute stroke patients with suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO) directly to an endovascular-capable hospital (ECH) even if that means bypassing a closer alteplase-capable hospital (ACH) without endovascular capability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The survey was composed of two cases of acute stroke, one with cortical symptoms suggestive of LVO and the other without. In each case, responders were asked to choose between triaging to a closer ACH or an ECH that is further away and to provide an opinion regarding the maximum extra travel time they would tolerate if they chose the ECH. The survey was sent electronically to national groups of neurologists, emergency department (ED) physicians, emergency medical service (EMS) directors, and stroke coordinators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 320 responders from 44 states, most of them with 10 years or more of experience. Most of the responders, 72.5%, chose ECH for the LVO case, while 56% chose ACH for the non-LVO case. There were marked differences in responses by specialty: neurology strongly supported ECH for LVO and strongly supported ACH for non-LVO, most ED and EMS chose ECH for both cases, and stroke coordinators were the least supportive of bypassing ACH. Almost all groups agreed on 30 min as the acceptable extra transfer time to ECH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the survey responders, there is a broad acceptance of the idea of bypassing ACH and going straight to ECH when LVO is suspected; however, there is less agreement on triaging patients with non-LVO stroke.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46280,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Neurology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000486459\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000486459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/3/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000486459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:我们进行了一项在线调查,以评估将疑似大血管闭塞(LVO)的急性卒中患者直接送往血管内功能医院(ECH)的接受程度,即使这意味着绕过更近的没有血管内功能的阿特普酶功能医院(ACH)。方法:对2例急性脑卒中患者进行调查,其中1例有提示LVO的皮质症状,另1例无。在每种情况下,应答者都被要求在就近的医院或较远的医院之间做出选择,并就如果选择就近的医院,他们能容忍的最大额外旅行时间提供意见。该调查以电子方式发送给全国神经科医生、急诊科(ED)医生、紧急医疗服务(EMS)主任和中风协调员。结果:共有来自44个州的320名应答者,其中大多数具有10年或以上的工作经验。大多数应答者(72.5%)在LVO病例中选择ECH,而56%的应答者在非LVO病例中选择ACH。不同专科的反应有显著差异:神经内科强烈支持左心室血管旁路术,而非左心室血管旁路术则强烈支持ACH, ED和EMS对这两种情况均选择ECH,卒中协调员最不支持旁路ACH。几乎所有小组都同意将30分钟作为可接受的额外转移时间。结论:在调查应答者中,当怀疑LVO时,广泛接受绕过ACH直接进入ECH的想法;然而,对于非左心室卒中患者的分诊,目前还没有达成一致意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Support of New Triage Protocol among Acute Stroke Care Providers.

Support of New Triage Protocol among Acute Stroke Care Providers.

Objective: We conducted an online survey to gauge the acceptance of sending acute stroke patients with suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO) directly to an endovascular-capable hospital (ECH) even if that means bypassing a closer alteplase-capable hospital (ACH) without endovascular capability.

Methods: The survey was composed of two cases of acute stroke, one with cortical symptoms suggestive of LVO and the other without. In each case, responders were asked to choose between triaging to a closer ACH or an ECH that is further away and to provide an opinion regarding the maximum extra travel time they would tolerate if they chose the ECH. The survey was sent electronically to national groups of neurologists, emergency department (ED) physicians, emergency medical service (EMS) directors, and stroke coordinators.

Results: There were 320 responders from 44 states, most of them with 10 years or more of experience. Most of the responders, 72.5%, chose ECH for the LVO case, while 56% chose ACH for the non-LVO case. There were marked differences in responses by specialty: neurology strongly supported ECH for LVO and strongly supported ACH for non-LVO, most ED and EMS chose ECH for both cases, and stroke coordinators were the least supportive of bypassing ACH. Almost all groups agreed on 30 min as the acceptable extra transfer time to ECH.

Conclusion: Among the survey responders, there is a broad acceptance of the idea of bypassing ACH and going straight to ECH when LVO is suspected; however, there is less agreement on triaging patients with non-LVO stroke.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interventional Neurology
Interventional Neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信