4.5 Article

Concordance of stroke symptom onset time: The second delay in accessing stroke healthcare (DASH II) study

Journal

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 202-207

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1047-2797(00)00211-8

Keywords

acute stroke; epidemiology; interviews; medical records; stroke

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [5-T32-HL007055] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: This study examines the concordance between symptom onset obtained during an interview in the emergency department (ED) compared to that recorded in the medical record among patients with stroke-like symptoms and characterizes the frequency of missing symptom onset information in the medical record. METHODS: Interviews with patients presenting with signs and symptoms of acute stroke were completed in the ED of seven hospitals to determine symptom onset time. Symptom onset recorded in the medical record was abstracted after the patient was discharged. RESULTS: Among the patients who presented to the ED with stroke-like symptoms, 60.2% overall (n = 583) and 61.9% among stroke patients (n = 252) had a symptom onset date and time recorded in the medical record. The Pearson correlation of prehospital delay time, comparing symptom onset obtained by interview to that obtained by the medical record was 0.80 and among stroke patients was 0.91. Concordance of prehospital delay time for stroke within +/- 1 h between the interview and the medical record was 60.1%. For stroke patients, concordance was more likely for those who had higher functional status prior to the acute episode. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom onset time was often missing from the medical record. Standardized and systematic recording of delay time in the medical record could increase its utility as a clinical measure and as a research tool for acute stroke. Ann Epidemiol 2001;11:202-207. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available