4.4 Article

Door to Needle Time over TelestrokeA Comprehensive Stroke Center Experience

Journal

TELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 111-115

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2017.0067

Keywords

ischemic stroke; telestroke; telemedicine; tPA; door to needle time

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background:The implementation of telestroke programs has allowed patients living in rural areas suffering from acute ischemic stroke to receive expert acute stroke consultation and intravenous Alteplase (tPA). The purpose of this study is to compare door to needle (DTN) time when tPA is administered at telestroke sites (spokes) through telestroke consultations compared to tPA administration at the comprehensive stroke center (hub).Methods:Data on all patients who received intravenous tPA at the hub and spoke hospitals through a large telestroke program between May 2008 and December 2016 were collected. Baseline characteristics were compared between the two groups, and the percentage of patients meeting DTN guidelines was compared between the hub and spoke hospitals during the study period. Comparison of DTN before and after the implementation of a quality improvement project was performed.Results:A total of 1,665 patients received tPA at either the spoke (n=1,323) or the hub (n=342) during the study period. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both treatment groups. Before the intervention, DTN time <60min was achieved in 88% of the hub patients versus 38% of the spoke patients. This difference between the two groups decreased by 35 percentage points, controlling for year (p=0.0018) after the interventions.Conclusion:Overall, DTN is longer at the spoke hospitals compared to the hub hospital. This can be improved by various interventions that target quality, training, education, and improving the comfort level of the staff at partner hospitals when treating acute stroke patients.

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