4.0 Review

A Retrospective Review of Patients With Acute Stroke With and Without Palliative Care Consultations

Journal

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1049909118787136

Keywords

stroke; palliative care; specialty palliative care; uncertain prognosis; discharge; hemorrhagic stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite advances in stroke care, patients continue to incur significant disability, are at risk for future events, and are inconsistently comanaged with palliative care (PC) specialty teams. The purpose of this study was to review patients with stroke admitted to our institution, comparing patients with and without PC consultation. We retrospectively reviewed medical record data of all patients with stroke admitted to our neurosciences ICU (NICU) in July 2014 to June 2015 with and without PC consultation. Review focused on stroke type, patient demographics, median days to discharge and death, and posthospitalization discharge. Of 463 patients admitted to the NICU with a stroke diagnosis, 27% (125/463) had (PC) consultation. A higher percentage of the patients with PC consult presented with hemorrhagic stroke than those without PC consult (38% vs 21%, P < .001). Patients with PC consult had longer median days to discharge and death (P < .001) and a higher percentage of mortality (32% vs 11%). Of the 301 patients without PC consult who discharged (89.1%), 36.5% discharged to inpatient rehab while 10% discharged to a skilled nursing facility. In comparison, of the patients with PC consultation who discharged alive (41.1%), 15.7% discharged to inpatient rehab whereas 39% discharged to skilled nursing (P < .001). The uncertainty of which patients with stroke benefit most from specialty PC is highlighted in that although sicker patients are referred to PC, a substantial portion (41%) of these patients discharge alive, of which 39.2% discharged to skilled nursing. Future research should focus on which patients with stroke would benefit from specialty PC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available