Stroke treatment outcomes in hospitals with and without Stroke Units. / Resultados en el tratamiento del ictus en hospitales con y sin Unidad de Ictus.

INTRODUCTION: Organisational capacity in terms of resources and care circuits to shorten response times in new stroke cases is key to obtaining positive outcomes. This study compares therapeutic approaches and treatment outcomes between traditional care centres (with stroke teams and no stroke unit) and centres with stroke units. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, quasi-experimental study (without randomisation of the units analysed) to draw comparisons between 2 centres with stroke units and 4 centres providing traditional care through the neurology department, analysing a selection of agreed indicators for monitoring quality of stroke care. A total of 225 patients participated in the study. In addition, self-administered questionnaires were used to collect patients' evaluations of the service and healthcare received. RESULTS: Centres with stroke units showed shorter response times after symptom onset, both in the time taken to arrive at the centre and in the time elapsed from patient's arrival at the hospital to diagnostic imaging. Hospitals with stroke units had greater capacity to respond through the application of intravenous thrombolysis than centres delivering traditional neurological care. CONCLUSION: Centres with stroke units showed a better fit to the reference standards for stroke response time, as calculated in the Quick study, than centres providing traditional care through the neurology department.

A set of care quality indicators for stroke management. / Conjunto de indicadores de calidad asistencial en el abordaje del ictus.

OBJECTIVE: This study proposes a set of quality indicators for care outcomes in patients with acute cerebral infarction. These indicators are understandable and relevant from a clinical viewpoint, as well as being acceptable and feasible in terms of time required, ease of data capture, and interpretability. METHOD: The method consisted of reaching consensus among doctors after having reviewed the literature on quality indicators in stroke. We then designed and conducted a field study to assess the understandability and feasibility of the set of indicators. RESULTS: Consensus yielded 8 structural indicators, 5 process indicators, and 12 result indicators. Additionally, standards of reference were established for each indicator. CONCLUSION: This set of indicators can be used to monitor the quality care for stroke patients, identify strengths, and potentially to identify areas needing improvement.