4.4 Article

Concentrating stroke care provision in the Czech Republic: The establishment of Stroke Centres in 2011 has led to improved outcomes*

Journal

HEALTH POLICY
Volume 125, Issue 4, Pages 520-525

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.01.011

Keywords

Stroke; Highly specialized care concentration; Quality monitoring; Benchmarking; Recanalization therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article describes the policy processes that have led to the reorganization of stroke care in the Czech Republic since 2011, with 13 Comprehensive and 32 Primary Stroke Centers now providing care. The reform implementation has been supported by factors such as mandatory reporting of quality indicators and the introduction of a benchmarking system. Positive trends have been observed in the number of patients receiving thrombolysis, with the Czech Republic ranking highly in Europe for thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomies per population. Proper implementation processes, stakeholder involvement, and continuous benchmarking are highlighted as essential for successful stroke care outcomes.
This article describes policy processes that have led to the re-organisation of stroke care in the Czech Republic since 2011, which has been part of a broader process of care concentration in several medical fields. Currently, stroke care is provided by 13 Comprehensive and 32 Primary Stroke Centres. The paper explains factors that supported the reform implementation, reviews implications, and discusses future challenges. Mandatory reporting of quality indicators, the introduction of a benchmarking system, integration with pre-hospital emergency care, and the introduction of countrywide patient triage have supported more timely treatment for stroke patients and better quality of care. Data from the Stroke Care Quality Indicators of the Czech Stroke Society show positive trends in many areas: the number of patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis quadrupled in eight years, with 26.4 % of all acute stroke patients receiving thrombolysis in 2018. Czech Republic now ranks third in Europe in the number of thrombolysis per population and second in the number of mechanical thrombectomies per population. The Czech experience provides an example of positive outcomes of concentrated stroke care, while highlighting the importance of proper implementation processes. In particular, it is essential to involve stakeholders and to provide reputational incentives through continuous benchmarking. This article describes policy processes that have led to the re-organisation of stroke care in the Czech Republic since 2011, which has been part of a broader process of care concentration in several medical fields. Currently, stroke care is provided by 13 Comprehensive and 32 Primary Stroke Centres. The paper explains factors that supported the reform implementation, reviews implications, and discusses future challenges. Mandatory reporting of quality indicators, the introduction of a benchmarking system, integration with pre-hospital emergency care, and the introduction of countrywide patient triage have supported more timely treatment for stroke patients and better quality of care. Data from the Stroke Care Quality Indica-tors of the Czech Stroke Society show positive trends in many areas: the number of patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis quadrupled in eight years, with 26.4 % of all acute stroke patients receiving thrombolysis in 2018. Czech Republic now ranks third in Europe in the number of thrombolysis per pop-ulation and second in the number of mechanical thrombectomies per population. The Czech experience provides an example of positive outcomes of concentrated stroke care, while highlighting the importance of proper implementation processes. In particular, it is essential to involve stakeholders and to provide reputational incentives through continuous benchmarking. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available