4.7 Article

Off-hours admission for acute stroke is not associated with worse outcome - a nationwide Israeli stroke project

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 643-647

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03603.x

关键词

acute stroke; off-hours; outcome; weekend

资金

  1. Israeli center for disease control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Several studies reported worse outcome for stroke patients arriving on weekends. We compared working hours to off-work hours throughout the week as there is lack of experienced staff and special services during off-hours. Methods: A nationwide stroke survey project on acute stroke was carried out in all acute care hospitals in Israel during 2004, 2007 and 2010 (2-month each). 'On-hours' were defined as regular Israel working hours and the rest, including holidays, were defined as 'off-hours'. The modified Rankin scale (mRS) at discharge was used for the main analysis on outcome. Results: A total of 4827 acute strokes patients were analyzed (2139 arrived on-hours and 2688 during off-hours). 'Off-hours' patients were 1 year younger (mean 70 vs. 71 years in 'on-hours') had lower rates of prior cardiac interventions, but had higher admission blood pressure levels and had more intracerebral hemorrhages (ICH) (11% vs. 8% in 'on-hours' patients, P < 0.001). Death during hospitalization was recorded in 9% of 'off-hours' vs. 6% of 'on-hours' patient (P = 0.004). Controlling for age, blood pressure, stroke type, pre-stroke mRS, admission NIHSS, and thrombolysis, the relative odds of poor outcome (i.e. mRS >= 2) amongst 'off-hours' admissions compared to on-hours was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.92-1.30). Odds ratio amongst ischaemic stroke patients was 1.08 (95% CI: 0.88-1.33). Conclusions: Off-hours stroke admissions were associated with higher short-term mortality rate, probably due to a higher rate of ICH. After controlling for the latter and other potential confounders, 'off-hours' admissions were not different from 'on-hours' with respect to poor outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据