ABSTRACT
Introduction: In 2020, stroke and ambulance clinicians in North Central (NC) London and East Kent introduced prehospital video triage, which permitted stroke specialist assessment of suspected stroke patients on scene. Key aims included reducing conveyance of non-stroke patients to stroke services and reducing transmission of Covid-19. Method(s): Rapid, mixed-method evaluation of prehospital video triage in NC London and East Kent (conducted July 2020-September 2021), drawing on: * Interviews with ambulance and stroke clinicians (n=27);observations (n=12);documents (n=23). * Survey of ambulance clinicians (n=233). * Descriptive analysis of local ambulance conveyance data (n=1,400;April-September 2020). * Difference-in-differences regression analysis: team-level national audit data, assessing changes in delivery of clinical interventions in NC London and East Kent relative to elsewhere in England (n=137,650;2018-2020). Result(s): Clinicians perceived prehospital video triage as usable, safe, and preferable to 'business-as-usual'. Several interrelated factors influenced implementation: impetus of Covid- 19, facilitative local governance, receptive professional values, engaging clinical leadership, active training approaches, and stable audio-visual signal. Stroke clinician capacity was a risk to sustainability. Neither area saw increased time from symptom onset to arrival at services. Delivery of clinical interventions either remained unchanged or improved significantly, relative to elsewhere in England. Conclusion(s): Prehospital video triage in NC London and East Kent was perceived as usable, acceptable, and safe;it was associated with some significant improvements in secondary care processes. Key influences included national and local context, characteristics of triage services, and implementation approaches.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In response to COVID-19, alongside other service changes, North Central London and East Kent implemented prehospital video triage: this involved stroke and ambulance clinicians communicating over FaceTime (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) to assess suspected stroke patients while still on scene. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation, experience and impact of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent. DESIGN: A rapid mixed-methods service evaluation (July 2020 to September 2021) using the following methods. (1) Evidence reviews: scoping review (15 reviews included) and rapid systematic review (47 papers included) on prehospital video triage for stroke, covering usability (audio-visual and signal quality);acceptability (whether or not clinicians want to use it);impact (on outcomes, safety, experience and cost-effectiveness);and factors influencing implementation. (2) Clinician views of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent, covering usability, acceptability, patient safety and implementation: qualitative analysis of interviews with ambulance and stroke clinicians (n = 27), observations (n = 12) and documents (n = 23);a survey of ambulance clinicians (n = 233). (3) Impact on safety and quality: analysis of local ambulance conveyance times (n = 1400;April to September 2020). Analysis of national stroke audit data on ambulance conveyance and stroke unit delivery of clinical interventions in North Central London, East Kent and the rest of England (n = 137,650;July 2018 to December 2020). RESULTS: (1) Evidence: limited but growing, and sparse in UK settings. Prehospital video triage can be usable and acceptable, requiring clear network connection and audio-visual signal, clinician training and communication. Key knowledge gaps included impact on patient conveyance, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. (2) Clinician views. Usability - relied on stable Wi-Fi and audio-visual signals, and back-up processes for when signals failed. Clinicians described training as important for confidence in using prehospital video triage services, noting potential for 'refresher' courses and joint training events. Ambulance clinicians preferred more active training, as used in North Central London. Acceptability - most clinicians felt that prehospital video triage improved on previous processes and wanted it to continue or expand. Ambulance clinicians reported increased confidence in decisions. Stroke clinicians found doing assessments alongside their standard duties a source of pressure. Safety - clinical leaders monitored and managed potential patient safety issues;clinicians felt strongly that services were safe. Implementation - several factors enabled prehospital video triage at a system level (e.g. COVID-19) and more locally (e.g. facilitative governance, receptive clinicians). Clinical leaders reached across and beyond their organisations to engage clinicians, senior managers and the wider system. (3) Impact on safety and quality: we found no evidence of increased times from symptom onset to arrival at services or of stroke clinical interventions reducing in studied areas. We found several significant improvements relative to the rest of England (possibly resulting from other service changes). LIMITATIONS: We could not interview patients and carers. Ambulance data had no historic or regional comparators. Stroke audit data were not at patient level. Several safety issues were not collected routinely. Our survey used a convenience sample. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital video triage was perceived as usable, acceptable and safe in both areas. FUTURE RESEARCH: Qualitative research with patients, carers and other stakeholders and quantitative analysis of patient-level data on care delivery, outcomes and cost-effectiveness, using national controls. Focus on sustainability and roll-out of services. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021254209. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research;Vol. 10, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
ABSTRACT
Background: In 2020, North Central (NC) London and East Kent introduced prehospital video triage, where stroke and ambulance clinicians used videoconferencing to assess suspected stroke patients on scene. The aim was to reduce conveyance of non-stroke patients to stroke services and reduce transmission of Covid-19. Methods: Rapid, mixed-method evaluation of prehospital video triage in NC London and East Kent (July 2020-September 2021), drawing on: • Interviews with ambulance and stroke clinicians (n=27);observations (n=12);documents (n=23);• Survey of ambulance clinicians (n=233) in NC London and East Kent. • Descriptive statistical analysis of local ambulance conveyance data (n=1,400;April-September 2020). • Difference-in-differences regression analysis of team-level national audit data, to understand changes in delivery of clinical interventions in NC London and East Kent relative to the rest of England (n=137,650;2018-2020). Results: Interview and survey data suggested clinicians perceived prehospital video triage as usable, safe, and preferable to 'business-as-usual'. Several interrelated factors influenced implementation, including impetus of Covid-19, facilitative local governance, receptive professional values, engaging clinical leadership, active training approaches, and stable audiovisual signal;stroke clinician capacity was a potential risk to sustainability. Neither area saw increased time from symptom onset to arrival at services, while delivery of clinical interventions either remained unchanged or improved significantly, relative to the rest of England. Conclusions: Prehospital video triage in NC London and East Kent was perceived as usable, acceptable, and safe;it was associated with some significant improvements in secondary care processes. Key influences included national and local context, characteristics of triage services, and implementation approaches.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The benefits of reorganisation (System optimisation) of stroke services to create sustainable, high-quality larger units are well known. This frequently takes many years of planning and public consultation. We report the benefits of co locating two smaller acute stroke units (600 confirmed strokes each per year) onto one non-acute site, planned and delivered to support the wider COVID 19 response in England. Methods: Planned and delivered over 10 days in May 2020: Innovations introduced: 1) Prehospital: telemedicine assessment between stroke specialist and ambulance crew;improving sensitivity and specificity of triage to support time critical access to Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy. 2) Adherence to a National Optimal Stroke Imaging Pathway (NOSIP): 24/7 access to CTA, CTP with AI support and 12hrs access to MRI. 3) Autonomy of stroke bed base 4) Inpatient stroke care redesign: to deliver initial acute care (72 hours) and early rehabilitation (post 72 hours) with medical and therapy care delivered routinely 7 days per week. Monthly evaluation of quality indicators (SSNAP) enabled evaluation, benchmarked against local (pre-pandemic) and national performance. Mortality and length of stay outcomes analysed. Results: Significant and sustained improvement across all 10 domains of care with increased thrombolysis rates >20%, thrombectomy rates >5%, statistically significant relative mortality risk of 59.6% (65 lives saved) and 38% reduction in length of stay (17 to 11 days). Conclusions: Sustainable improvements to stroke services may be delivered rapidly, incorporating innovative solutions to deliver sustainable high-quality stroke care, whilst supporting the wider health care response to the COVID pandemic. (Figure Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic prehospital video assessment (PHVA) of possible stroke was commenced by University College London Hospital and London Ambulance Service. We compared the accuracy of this assessment tool against conventional screening with FAST. Methods: We examined the accuracy of PHVA from May 2020 to April 2021, together with final diagnoses, timings for treatment provided and ambulance crew primary assessment (FAST status) wherever this was recorded. Results: Of 1300 patients triaged, 600 (46%) were sent to HASU, 570 (44%) were AE diverts and 65 (5%) were sent to their local TIA clinic. 40 patients (3%) were returned to their LAS pathway and missing data was noted for 25 patients (2%). From 426 patients where FAST status was recorded, diagnosis of likely stroke/TIA was correct in 89% (278) of PHVA versus 55% (173) of FAST assessed cases. Correct identification of non-stroke was correct in 84% (96) of PHVA versus 65% (75) of FAST assessed cases. A positive predictive value of 93% (PHVA) versus 59% (FAST) and negative predictive value 96% (PHVA) versus 84% (FAST) is noted. 46 thrombolysis and 12 thrombectomy cases with median treatment time before and during PHVA of 35 minutes (Interquartile range (IQR)-26) vs 33 (IQR-15) and 136 (IQR-87) vs 125 (IQR-49) minutes respectively, were noted. Conclusions: PHVA has been validated further, showing superior accuracy to the existing FAST assessment and may improve hyperacute treatment times and their variance.