Prioritizing gaps in stroke care: A two-round Delphi process

 

This is the whole problem in stroke enumerated in one word; 'care'; NOT RECOVERY!

YOU have to get involved and change this failure mindset of 'care' to 100% RECOVERY! Survivors want RECOVERY, NOT 'CARE'!

I don't see progress in 100% recovery! I consider the WSO a complete fucking failure for not even attempting to solve stroke to 100% recovery!

ASK SURVIVORS WHAT THEY WANT, THEY'LL NEVER RESPOND 'CARE'! This tyranny of low expectations has to be completely rooted out of any stroke conversation!

RECOVERY IS THE ONLY GOAL IN STROKE! GET THERE!

Prioritizing gaps in stroke care: A two-round Delphi process

• April 2025
• European Stroke Journal

DOI:10.1177/23969873251329841

Authors:

Elke Ge Mathijssen

Jaap Ca Trappenburg

Mark J Alberts

Angelique Balguid

Show all 27 authors

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Download citation

References (35)

Abstract

Background 

Despite international recognition of stroke as a significant health priority, discrepancies persist between the target values for stroke quality measures and the actual values that are achieved in clinical practice, referred to as gaps. This study aimed to reach consensus among international experts on prioritizing gaps in stroke care(NOT RECOVERY!). 

Methods 

A two-round Delphi process was conducted, surveying an international expert panel in the field of stroke care(NOT RECOVERY!) and cerebrovascular medicine, including patient representatives, healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers, and medical directors. Experts scored the importance and required effort to close 13 gaps throughout the stroke care(NOT RECOVERY!) continuum and proposed potential solutions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis methods. (This is your whole problem! You chose the wrong 'experts', they know nothing. Survivors know what needs to be done to get to 100% recovery!)

Results 

In the first and second Delphi rounds, 35 and 30 experts participated, respectively. Expert consensus was reached on the high importance of closing 11 out of 13 gaps. Two out of 13 gaps were considered moderately important to close, with expert consensus for one of these two gaps. Expert consensus indicated that only one gap, related to the prevention of complications after stroke, requires moderate effort to close, whereas the others were considered to require high effort to close. Key focus areas for potential solutions included: “Care infrastructure,” “Geographic disparities,” “Interdisciplinary collaboration,” and “Advocacy and funding.” 

Conclusions 

While closing gaps in stroke care(NOT RECOVERY!) primarily requires high effort and substantial resources, targeted interventions in the identified key focus areas may provide feasible and clinically meaningful improvements.