4.2 Article

Modern Interdisciplinary and Interhospital Acute Stroke Therapy-What Patients Think About It and What They Really Understand

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 27, Issue 10, Pages 2669-2676

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.05.029

Keywords

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS); neurovascular network (NVN); endovascular stroke treatment (EST); patient satisfaction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Access to reperfusion therapies in patients with large vessel occluding acute ischemic stroke demands process reorganization and optimization. Neurovascular networks are being built up to provide 24/7 endovascular stroke therapy service. In times of an increasingly complex stroke rescue chain little is known about patients' and their relatives' treatment awareness. Methods: All patients, who received any kind of acute reperfusion treatment between January and August 2017 in the university hospital Aachen, and their proxies, were included in the survey. Patients were either primarily or secondarily transferred. Results: For all questions regarding stroke treatment patients and their caregivers provided concurring answers. 40% of both patients and caregivers did not understand the treatment that was performed. Finally, patients who perceived on their own that stroke detection was delayed had significantly longer onset to door times than patients who did not have this impression. Conclusions: This study showed that patients' and proxies' answers correlated significantly. In case of patients' unavailability extrapolation of treatment satisfaction from answers by proxies might be permitted. High percentages of patients and caregivers do not understand relevant information, possibly due to limits of communication in an emergency setting or deficits in communication during the hospital stay. More emphasis should be laid on providing further information during the hospital stay.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available