Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Does Use of the Recognition Of Stroke In the Emergency Room Stroke Assessment Tool Enhance Stroke Recognition by Ambulance Clinicians? NO

Anything less than 100% accuracy is failure. This failed. Start figuring out an objective test. Maybe  this;
1. Star Trek-style 'tricorder' invention offered $10m prize
2. Strokefinder quickly differentiates bleeding strokes from clot-induced strokes
3.  One of these 17 ways still need to be be proven for fast and objective diagnosis.

The current article;
 http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/44/11/3007.abstract

  1. Patrick Gompertz, MBChB, FRCP
+ Author Affiliations
  1. From the Clinical Audit and Research Unit, London Ambulance Service National Health Service (NHS) Trust, London, United Kingdom (R.T.F., M.J.E.); School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom (J.W.); College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom (I.T.R.); and Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom (P.G.).
  1. Correspondence to Rachael Fothergill, PhD, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, 8–20 Pocock St, London, SE1 0BW, United Kingdom. E-mail rachael.fothergill@lond-amb.nhs.uk

Abstract

Background and Purpose—UK ambulance services assess patients with suspected stroke using the Face Arm Speech Test (FAST). The Recognition Of Stroke In the Emergency Room (ROSIER) tool has been shown superior to the FAST in identifying strokes in emergency departments but has not previously been tested in the ambulance setting. We investigated whether ROSIER use by ambulance clinicians can improve stroke recognition.
Methods—Ambulance clinicians used the ROSIER in place of the FAST to assess patients with suspected stroke. As the ROSIER includes all FAST elements, we calculated a FAST score from the ROSIER to enable comparisons between the two tools. Ambulance clinicians’ provisional stroke diagnoses using the ROSIER and calculated FAST were compared with stroke consultants’ diagnosis. We used stepwise logistic regression to compare the contribution of individual ROSIER and FAST items and patient demographics to the prediction of consultants’ diagnoses.
Results—Sixty-four percent of strokes and 78% of nonstrokes identified by ambulance clinicians using the ROSIER were subsequently confirmed by a stroke consultant. There was no difference in the proportion of strokes correctly detected by the ROSIER or FAST with both displaying excellent levels of sensitivity. The ROSIER detected marginally more nonstroke cases than the FAST, but both demonstrated poor specificity. Facial weakness, arm weakness, seizure activity, age, and sex predicted consultants’ diagnosis of stroke.
Conclusions—The ROSIER was not better than the FAST for prehospital recognition of stroke. A revised version of the FAST incorporating assessment of seizure activity may improve stroke identification and decision making by ambulance clinicians.

No comments:

Post a Comment