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.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Variation and Trends in the Documentation of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale in GWTG-Stroke Hospitals

Anything that uses the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale for measurement is almost worthless because of subjectivity.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/8/6_suppl_3/S90.abstract?etoc
  1. DaiWai Olson, PhD
+ Author Affiliations
  1. From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University, East Lansing (M.J.R., M.T.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada (E.E.S.); Division of Cardiology, Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA (G.C.F.); Duke Clinical Research Centre, Durham, NC (X.Z., E.D.P.); Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (L.H.S.); and Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas (D.O.).
  1. Correspondence to Matthew J. Reeves, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Michigan State University, 900 W Fee Rd, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail reevesm@msu.edu

Abstract

Background—Although National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is an important prognostic variable, it is often incompletely documented in clinical registries, such as Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)–Stroke. We describe trends in NIHSS documentation by GWTG-Stroke hospitals, identify patient-level and hospital-level factors associated with documentation, and determine the degree to which the reporting of NIHSS is potentially biased.
Methods and Results—We analyzed NIHSS documentation in 1 184 288 patients with acute ischemic stroke admitted to 1704 GWTG-Stroke hospitals between 2003 and 2012. We used multivariable logistic regression models to identify hospital-level and patient-level predictors of NIHSS documentation. We examined the relationship between hospital-level NIHSS documentation rates and observed NIHSS scores to determine whether the reporting of NIHSS data was subject to selection bias. The overall NIHSS documentation rate was 56.1%; the median NIHSS was 4 (interquartile range, 2–9). Between 2003 and 2012, mean hospital-level NIHSS documentation increased dramatically from 27% to 70% (P<0.0001). Documentation was higher in patients who arrived by ambulance, who arrived soon after onset, and were treated at larger, primary stroke centers. Hospital-level NIHSS documentation rates and NIHSS scores were modestly inversely correlated (r=−0.207; P<0.0001), suggesting that NIHSS data from hospitals with low documentation were shifted toward higher values. In sensitivity analysis, the degree of bias in NIHSS reporting was reduced in more recent years (2011–2012) when NIHSS documentation was noticeably better.
Conclusions—Documentation of NIHSS is higher in patients who are thrombolysis candidates. Evidence of modest bias in NIHSS scores was observed but this has lessened as the documentation of NIHSS has improved in recent years.

No comments:

Post a Comment