Deans' stroke musings: Remote Longitudinal Inpatient Acute Stroke Care Via Telestroke

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.

Sunday, March 28, 2021

Remote Longitudinal Inpatient Acute Stroke Care Via Telestroke

Oh God, measuring cost rather than 100% recovery as a reason to consider going down this path. THIS FUCKING STUPIDITY is why survivors need to be in charge. They would keep their eye on the only goal in stroke; 100% RECOVERY.

ShashvatDesaiMD*EvanMadillMD^†MatthewStarrMD*MarceloRochaPhD*BradleyMolyneauxPhD*TudorJovinMD^‡LawrenceWechslerMD^§AshutoshJadhavMD, PhD^⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105749 Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

While telestroke ‘hub-and-spoke’ systems are a well-established model for improving acute stroke care at spoke facilities, utility beyond the hyperacute phase is unknown. In patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis via telemedicine, care at spoke facilities has been shown to be associated with longer length of stay and worse outcomes. We sought to explore the impact of ongoing stroke care by a vascular neurologist via telemedicine compared to care provided by local neurologists.

Methods

A network spoke facility protocol was revised to pilot telestroke consultation with a hub vascular neurologist for all patients presenting to the emergency department with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack regardless of time since onset or severity. Subsequent telestroke rounds were performed for patients who received initial telestroke consultation. Key outcome measures were length of stay, 30-day readmission and mortality and 90-day mRS. Results during the pilot (post-cohort) were compared to the same hospital's previous outcomes (pre-cohort).

Results

Of 257 enrolled patients, 67% were in the post-cohort. Forty percent (69) of the post-cohort received an initial telestroke consult. In spoke-retained patients followed by telestroke rounds (55), median length of stay decreased by 0.8 days (P = 0.01). Readmission and mortality rates did not differ significantly between groups (19.5 vs. 9.1%, P = 0.14 and 3.9 vs. 3.6%, P = 1, respectively). The favorable functional outcome rate was similar between groups (47.3% vs 65.9%, P = 0.50).

Conclusions

Longitudinal stroke care via telestroke may be economically viable through length of stay reduction. Randomized prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings and further investigate this model's potential benefits.