Risk adjustment of ischemic stroke outcomes for comparing hospital performance: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke is the fourth-leading cause of death and a leading cause of long-term major disability in the United States. Measuring outcomes after stroke has important policy implications. The primary goals of this consensus statement are to (1) review statistical considerations when evaluating models that define hospital performance in providing stroke care; (2) discuss the benefits, limitations, and potential unintended consequences of using various outcome measures when evaluating the quality of ischemic stroke care at the hospital level; (3) summarize the evidence on the role of specific clinical and administrative variables, including patient preferences, in risk-adjusted models of ischemic stroke outcomes; (4) provide recommendations on the minimum list of variables that should be included in risk adjustment of ischemic stroke outcomes for comparisons of quality at the hospital level; and (5) provide recommendations for further research. METHODS AND RESULTS: This statement gives an overview of statistical considerations for the evaluation of hospital-level outcomes after stroke and provides a systematic review of the literature for the following outcome measures for ischemic stroke at 30 days: functional outcomes, mortality, and readmissions. Data on outcomes after stroke have primarily involved studies conducted at an individual patient level rather than a hospital level. On the basis of the available information, the following factors should be included in all hospital-level risk-adjustment models: age, sex, stroke severity, comorbid conditions, and vascular risk factors. Because stroke severity is the most important prognostic factor for individual patients and appears to be a significant predictor of hospital-level performance for 30-day mortality, inclusion of a stroke severity measure in risk-adjustment models for 30-day outcome measures is recommended. Risk-adjustment models that do not include stroke severity or other recommended variables must provide comparable classification of hospital performance as models that include these variables. Stroke severity and other variables that are included in risk-adjustment models should be standardized across sites, so that their reliability and accuracy are equivalent. There is a pressing need for research in multiple areas to better identify methods and metrics to evaluate outcomes of stroke care. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of important methodological challenges in undertaking risk-adjusted outcome comparisons to assess the quality of stroke care in different hospitals. It is important for stakeholders to recognize these challenges and for there to be a concerted approach to improving the methods for quality assessment and improvement.

Metrics for measuring quality of care in comprehensive stroke centers: detailed follow-up to Brain Attack Coalition comprehensive stroke center recommendations: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a major cause of disability and death. The Brain Attack Coalition has proposed establishment of primary and comprehensive stroke centers to provide appropriate care to stroke patients who require basic and more advanced interventions, respectively. Primary stroke centers have been designated by The Joint Commission since 2003, as well as by various states. The designation of comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) is now being considered. To assist in this process, we propose a set of metrics and related data that CSCs should track to monitor the quality of care that they provide and to facilitate quality improvement. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed available guideline statements, reviews, and other literature to identify the major features that distinguish CSCs from primary stroke centers, drafted a set of metrics and related data elements to measure the key components of these aspects of stroke care, and then revised these through an iterative process to reach a consensus. We propose a set of metrics and related data elements that cover the major aspects of specialized care for patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease and nontraumatic subarachnoid and intracerebral hemorrhages at CSCs. CONCLUSIONS: The metrics that we propose are intended to provide a framework for standardized data collection at CSCs to facilitate local quality improvement efforts and to allow for analysis of pooled data from different CSCs that may lead to development of national performance standards for CSCs in the future.

Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This guideline provides an overview of the evidence on established and emerging risk factors for stroke to provide evidence-based recommendations for the reduction of risk of a first stroke. METHODS: Writing group members were nominated by the committee chair on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee. The writing group used systematic literature reviews (covering the time since the last review was published in 2006 up to April 2009), reference to previously published guidelines, personal files, and expert opinion to summarize existing evidence, indicate gaps in current knowledge, and when appropriate, formulate recommendations using standard AHA criteria (Tables 1 and 2). All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on the recommendations and approved the final version of this document. The guideline underwent extensive peer review by the Stroke Council leadership and the AHA scientific statements oversight committees before consideration and approval by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. RESULTS: Schemes for assessing a person's risk of a first stroke were evaluated. Risk factors or risk markers for a first stroke were classified according to potential for modification (nonmodifiable, modifiable, or potentially modifiable) and strength of evidence (well documented or less well documented). Nonmodifiable risk factors include age, sex, low birth weight, race/ethnicity, and genetic predisposition. Well-documented and modifiable risk factors include hypertension, exposure to cigarette smoke, diabetes, atrial fibrillation and certain other cardiac conditions, dyslipidemia, carotid artery stenosis, sickle cell disease, postmenopausal hormone therapy, poor diet, physical inactivity, and obesity and body fat distribution. Less well-documented or potentially modifiable risk factors include the metabolic syndrome, excessive alcohol consumption, drug abuse, use of oral contraceptives, sleep-disordered breathing, migraine, hyperhomocysteinemia, elevated lipoprotein(a), hypercoagulability, inflammation, and infection. Data on the use of aspirin for primary stroke prevention are reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive evidence identifies a variety of specific factors that increase the risk of a first stroke and that provide strategies for reducing that risk.

The Stroke Practice Improvement Network: a quasiexperimental trial of a multifaceted intervention to improve quality.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to determine whether a tailored multifaceted intervention aimed at site-specific barriers is more effective than audit feedback alone for improving adherence to inhospital stroke performance measures (PMs): door to needle time of less than 1 hour for tissue plasminogen activator, dysphagia screening, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, and warfarin treatment for atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Hospitals were paired on baseline adherence to dysphagia screening and quality improvement infrastructure and randomized to receive audit feedback alone (n=7) versus audit feedback plus site-specific interventions (n=6). Data were collected on all admitted patients with stroke seen in the neurology department before and after a 6-month implementation period. The primary end point was the difference in postintervention adherence rates for each PM, except tissue plasminogen activator because of low sample size. RESULTS: Data were collected on 2071 preintervention patients and 1240 postintervention patients. Targeted site-specific interventions, such as standing orders and standardized dysphagia screens, were imperfectly implemented during the 6-month intervention period. For atrial fibrillation, the intervention group had an 11% higher postintervention adherence rate beyond that of the control group (98% v 87%, P < .005). No other statistically significant changes in PM adherence were observed. CONCLUSION: Implementation of site-specific interventions for quality improvement of specific measures in stroke was difficult to achieve in a 6-month time frame and led to improved adherence for only one of 3 PMs. Studies with a longer intervention period and more sites are required to determine whether tailored interventions can enhance stroke improvement.

Benchmarks and determinants of adherence to stroke performance measures.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Develop achievable benchmarks for 9 stroke performance measures (PM) and to identify organizational factors associated with adherence. METHODS: Adherence rates and achievable benchmarks were determined for 9 PM within a study of patients (n=2294) admitted with acute ischemic stroke at 17 hospitals. Baseline information regarding hospital characteristics and stroke-specific processes of care were collected, and multi-level models were used to test the association of these factors with adherence. RESULTS: Benchmarks were >or=90% for 8 of the 9 PM. After controlling for clustering, only use of standing orders was associated with adherence to PM, including: dysphagia screening, venous thrombosis prophylaxis, consideration of tPA, and provision of educational material. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of adherence are achievable for several acute stroke PM. Use of standing orders is associated with adherence to PM requiring immediate action on admission.

Formal dysphagia screening protocols prevent pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is an important complication of ischemic stroke and increases mortality 3-fold. Five guidelines recommend a dysphagia screen before oral intake. What constitutes an adequate dysphagia screen and which patients should receive it remain unclear. METHODS: Fifteen acute care institutions prospectively collected data on all admitted patients with acute ischemic stroke. Sites were required to collect data on demographics and 4 quality indicators. Optional data included stroke severity and complications. We measured adherence to a screen for dysphagia, the type of screen, and development of in-hospital pneumonia. RESULTS: Between December 2001 and January 2003, 2532 cases were collected. In-hospital complications were recorded on 2329 (92%) of cases. Stroke severity was captured on 1361 (54%). Adherence to a dysphagia screen was 61%. Six sites had a formal dysphagia screen, and their adherence rate was 78% compared with 57% at sites with no formal screen. The pneumonia rate at sites with a formal dysphagia screen was 2.4% versus 5.4% (P=0.0016) at sites with no formal screen. There was no difference in median stroke severity (5 versus 4; P=0.84) between the sites with and without a formal screen. A formal dysphagia screen prevented pneumonia even after adjusting for stroke severity. CONCLUSIONS: A formal dysphagia screen is associated with a higher adherence rate to dysphagia screens and a significantly decreased risk of pneumonia. A formal screening protocol should be offered to all stroke patients, regardless of stroke severity.

Increased pelvic vein thrombi in cryptogenic stroke: results of the Paradoxical Emboli from Large Veins in Ischemic Stroke (PELVIS) study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cryptogenic stroke is associated with an increased prevalence of patent foramen ovale. The Paradoxical Emboli From Large Veins in Ischemic Stroke (PELVIS) study hypothesized that patients with cryptogenic stroke have an increased prevalence of pelvic deep venous thrombosis (DVT). METHODS: At 5 sites, patients 18 to 60 years of age received an MRI venogram (MRV) of the pelvis within 72 hours of new symptom onset. Clinical data were then determined. Radiologists blinded to clinical data later read the scans. RESULTS: The 95 patients who met entry criteria were scanned. Their mean+/-SD age was 46+/-10 years, and time from stroke onset to pelvic MRV scan was 49+/-16 hours. Compared with those with stroke of determined origin (n=49), patients with cryptogenic stroke (n=46) were significantly younger, had a higher prevalence of patent foramen ovale (61% versus 19%), and had less atherosclerosis risk factors. Cryptogenic patients had more MRV scans with a high probability for pelvic DVT (20%) than patients with stroke of determined origin (4%, P<0.03), with most having an appearance of a chronic DVT. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of young stroke patients evaluated early after stroke, patients with cryptogenic stroke showed differences in several clinical features compared with patients with stroke of determined origin, including increased prevalence of pelvic DVT. The results require confirmation but suggest that paradoxical embolus from the pelvic veins may be the cause of stroke in a subset of patients classified as having cryptogenic stroke.