Seeing the good in the bad: actual clinical outcome of thrombectomy stroke patients with formally unfavorable outcome.

PURPOSE: Clinical outcome of stroke patients is usually classified into favorable (modified Rankin scale (mRS) 0-2) and unfavorable (mRS 3-5) outcome according to the modified Rankin scale. We took a closer look at the clinical course of thrombectomy stroke patients with formal unfavorable outcome and assessed whether we could achieve our treatment goals and/or neurological improvement in these patients. METHODS: We studied 107 patients with occlusions in the terminal carotid artery or the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery, in whom complete recanalization (eTICI 3) could be achieved, and who had an mRS of 3-5 at 90 days. We analyzed whether an individual treatment goal (i.e., preventing aphasia) and neurological improvement (NIHSS) could be achieved. In addition, we examined whether there was clinical improvement on the mRS. RESULTS: The treatment goal was achieved in 52% (53/103) and neurological improvement in 65% (67/103). mRS 90 days post-stroke was better than mRS upon admission in 36% (38/107) and better than or equal to mRS upon admission in 80% (86/107). Of the 93 patients with known pre-stroke mRS, 18% (17/93) already had an mRS ≥ 3, with 15 of these 17 patients having a worse mRS on admission than before. Of these 17 patients, 18% regained baseline, and 24% improved from admission. CONCLUSION: Dichotomizing the mRS into favorable and unfavorable outcome does not do justice to the full spectrum of stroke. Patients with formal unfavorable outcome after mRS can improve neurologically, achieve treatment goals, and even regain their admission or pre-stroke mRS.

Work satisfaction among neuroradiology staff after receiving follow up reports of thrombectomy stroke patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During a period of 6 months, we provided our entire neuroradiological staff including physicians, radiographers, and researchers with systematic feedback via email on the further clinical course of stroke patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy. We analyzed the effects of this feedback on work satisfaction, work meaningfulness and valuation of the therapy among our staff. METHODS: Our staff completed two self-reported questionnaires before and after the period of six months with systematic feedback. RESULTS: Employees with higher work meaningfulness and higher work satisfaction valuated endovascular stroke therapy as more useful (p<0.001). A good clinical outcome was regarded more motivating than a good interventional outcome (p<0.001). Receiving systematic feedback did not increase work satisfaction (p = 0.318) or work meaningfulness (p = 0.178). Radiographers valuated the usefulness of interventional therapy the worst of all employees (p≤ 0.017). After the feedback period, 75% of radiographers estimated stroke as a more severe disease than before. Also, their desire for feedback decreased significantly (p = 0.007). Primarily patient cases with unfavorable outcomes were remembered by the staff. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic email feedback does not per se enhance work satisfaction or work meaningfulness among employees. However, receiving feedback is educative for the staff. Evaluating work satisfaction and the perception of treatment may help to identify unexpected issues and may therefore help to find specific measures that increase work satisfaction and motivation.