(Stroke. 2000;31:2591.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contribution |
Determinants of Use of Emergency Medical Services in a Population With Stroke Symptoms
The Second Delay in Accessing Stroke Healthcare (DASH II) Study
From the Department of Epidemiology (E.B.S., W.D.R., K.R.E.), School of Public Health, and the Departments of Emergency Medicine (D.L.M.) and Neurology (A.H.), School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background and Purpose—With the advent of time-dependent thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke, it has become increasingly important for stroke patients to arrive at the hospital quickly. This study investigates the association between the use of emergency medical services (EMS) and delay time among individuals with stroke symptoms and examines the predictors of EMS use.
Methods—The Second Delay in Accessing Stroke Healthcare Study (DASH II) was a prospective study of 617 individuals arriving at emergency departments in Denver, Colo, Chapel Hill, NC, and Greenville, SC, with stroke symptoms.
Results—EMS use was associated with decreased prehospital and in-hospital delay. Those who used EMS had a median prehospital delay time of 2.85 hours compared with 4.03 hours for those who did not use EMS (P=0.002). Older individuals were more likely to use EMS (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 for each 5-year increase, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.29), as were individuals who expressed a high sense of urgency about their symptoms (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.62). Knowledge of stroke symptoms was not associated with increased EMS use (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98). Patients were more likely to use EMS if someone other than the patient first identified that there was a problem (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.44).
Conclusions—Interventions aimed at increasing EMS use among stroke patients need to stress the urgency of stroke symptoms and the importance of calling 911 and need to be broad-based, encompassing not only those at high risk for stroke but also their friends and family.
Key Words: cerebrovascular disorders • emergency medical services • stroke onset • stroke, acute
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Stroke is a major cause of disability and death in the United States, with
600 000 strokes and 160 000 deaths occurring
annually.1 Event rates and case fatality have been
declining. New evidence, however, suggests that the rate of improvement
has decreased in recent years.2 Until recently, treatment
of acute strokes has been mainly supportive. Although the National
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA trial provided
evidence that thrombolytic therapy for acute stroke can
improve neurological outcome, such therapy is time
dependent.3 Current guidelines from the American Heart
Association recommend thrombolytic therapy treatment
within 3 hours of the onset of symptoms and caution that the benefit of
such therapy for ischemic stroke beyond 3 hours from the onset
of symptoms has not been established.4 Additionally,
recommendations for the establishment of primary stroke centers to
improve acute stroke care have recently been published, stressing the
importance of rapid and efficient treatment of stroke
patients.5 Consequently, timely medical attention for patients with acute stroke is increasingly critical. An association between early arrival and the use of emergency medical services (EMS) has been found in some studies6 7 8 9 10 but not in all.11 12 Other studies have found an association between referral pattern and early arrival.13 14 15 16 17 Patients whose first medical contact was with 911 or EMS arrived at the hospital faster than did patients whose first medical contact was with a personal physician or a study hospital.13 14 15 16 17 Use of 911/EMS transport has also been associated with decreased in-hospital delay, including time to physician evaluation8 11 18 and time to CT scan.18 Two of these studies examined predictors of EMS use and found that patients who arrived by ambulance had more severe strokes,10 were older, more likely to be black, and more likely to have blood discernible on the initial CT.13
The present study examines EMS use in a prospective study of individuals arriving at emergency departments (EDs) with symptoms of stroke. Prehospital and in-hospital delay among those who did and did not use EMS was compared. Potential predictors of EMS use were examined by both univariate and multivariate analyses. It was hypothesized that patients expressing a greater sense of urgency about their symptoms, patients who had another person first identify that there was a problem, and older patients would be more likely to use EMS, whereas patients expressing more concerns about seeking health care and patients living alone would be less likely to use EMS. It was also hypothesized that there would be little association between knowledge of stroke symptoms and EMS use.
|
Subjects and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Study Design
A prospective registry of patients presenting to the ED with signs or symptoms suggestive of stroke was established in 3 study centers. The institutional review board on human participants in research at each center approved the study protocol. Participants or next of kin gave informed consent to be interviewed and to have their medical records abstracted.
Study Setting and Population
The present study was conducted in 7 hospitals in 3 cities:
Denver General Hospital, St Josephs Exempla Hospital, and University of
Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, Colo; Allen Bennett
Hospital, Greenville Memorial Hospital, and Hillcrest Hospital in
Greenville, SC; and the University of North Carolina Hospital,
Chapel Hill.
The University of North Carolina Hospital is a university-based
tertiary care facility that also serves as the primary care facility
for the surrounding area. The ED volume is 38 000 adult patients
per year, with 230 patients with a discharge diagnosis of stroke
admitted through the ED each year. Greenville Memorial Hospital is
a tertiary care facility with an ED volume of 65 000 per year, with
>600 patients with acute stroke admitted each year. Allen Bennett and
Hillcrest Hospital are 2 suburban hospitals with ED volumes <20 000
per year. University Hospital in Denver, Colo, is a university-based
hospital with a total ED volume of 34 000 per year, with 140
patients with acute strokes admitted through the ED each year. Denver
General Hospital and St Josephs Exempla Hospital are affiliated private
institutions in the Denver area.
Between October 1997 and December 1998, trained ED staff nurses enrolled 617 patients presenting with any of the following symptoms suggestive of stroke: sudden unilateral weakness or numbness of face, arm, or leg; sudden dimness or loss of vision; loss of speech; sudden severe headache; or unexplained dizziness. These broad criteria, based on symptoms at presentation and not on the hospital discharge diagnosis, resulted in the enrollment of many patients who ultimately were not diagnosed as having stroke. These sensitive criteria, however, allowed for the characterization of care-seeking behavior among a full spectrum of patients responding to strokelike symptoms. It is estimated that the enrolled patients represent 33% of all eligible patients with strokelike symptoms.
Measurement
During case enrollment, a trained nurse conducted with the
patient or proxy a 20-minute interview consisting of information on
demographics, time of onset of symptoms, nature of initial response,
time to contacting healthcare system, symptom recognition, knowledge
and attitude about stroke, and barriers to seeking care. Study
personnel tracked the course of the patient in the ED, noting the time
to being seen by a physician, time to CT scan, time to being seen by a
neurologist, and treatments received.
After each patient was discharged from the hospital, the medical records were obtained and abstracted for information on healthcare utilization while the patient was in the hospital as well as the final hospital discharge diagnosis. Medical records were obtained for 609 of the 617 patients enrolled. Clinical diagnoses (transient ischemic attack [TIA], ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and nonstroke) were determined through review of the discharge survey from the medical records and other pertinent information by a single neurologist (A.H.).
Race and prior history of stroke were obtained from the medical records. Patients were determined to have knowledge of stroke symptoms if they correctly named at least one stroke symptom (dizziness, loss of speech, numbness in arms or legs or face, weakness, headache, visual disturbance, paralysis, motor deficit, facial palsy, confusion, or disorientation) in response to an open-ended question.19 Patients were asked whether they had previously been told that they were at high stroke risk and whether they had previously received information about stroke symptoms. Potential barriers to timely access to medical care were established by asking the patient whether any of the following applied to him/her: (1) "didn’t think symptoms were serious," (2) "didn’t want to bother my physician," (3) "concern for cost," (4) "bad prior experience with hospitals/physicians," and (5) "did not believe there was anything to help me." Patients were also asked the following: "On a 1 to 10 scale, how urgent did you believe it was that you seek medical care for these symptoms?" Patients giving a response of 10 were considered to express a high sense of urgency and were compared with patients giving a response of 1 through 9. Questions regarding age, living alone, the identity of the person who first noticed symptoms (patient or bystander), time of day of the onset of symptoms, educational level, and location of the patient at the time of symptom onset (eg, at home or work) could be answered by either the patient or a proxy.
Symptom onset was obtained during the interview of the patient or proxy in the ED. If symptoms occurred during sleep, the onset time was the last time known to be symptom free. Time to seeing an ED physician (EP) was defined as the time from arrival in the ED (first time recorded in ED, usually triage or registration) until first being seen by an EP. Time to CT scan was defined as the time from ED arrival to completion of the CT scan. Time to seeing a neurologist was defined as the time from ED arrival until first contact with a neurologist.
Data Analysis
Seven patients with missing information on EMS use were
excluded. Fifty-one patients with prehospital delay periods >48 hours
were also excluded, leaving 559 patients for these analyses.
For statistical tests, an 
level of 0.05 was considered
statistically significant. Univariate associations of
categorical variables with EMS use were evaluated by
2 tests. Because of the skewed distribution of
the delay times, the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for
comparisons of time differences. For multiple pairwise comparisons, the
Scheffé method was used, with the corresponding probability value
adjusted for multiple comparisons. Associations of factors with EMS use
were obtained from multiple logistic regression, adjusted for age and
study center. Factors examined were age, sex, race, prior history of
stroke, living alone, identity of the person who first noticed symptoms
(patient or bystander), stroke type, knowledge of stroke symptoms,
having been told that s/he was at high stroke risk, having previously
received information about stroke symptoms, 5 potential barriers to
seeking care, and sense of urgency. There was insufficient data to
determine severity and its association with EMS use. All
analyses were performed by use of SAS Version 6.12 (SAS
Institute).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Of the 559 patients included in the analysis, 212 (39%) had a diagnosis of ischemic stroke; 21 (4%), intracerebral hemorrhage; 2 (0.4%), subarachnoid hemorrhage; 122 (22%), TIA; and 194 (35%), diagnoses other than stroke. Eight were missing medical records and thus were not given clinical diagnoses. Twenty-five percent of interviews were completed by a proxy. Those participants discharged with a diagnosis other than stroke or TIA had a variety of diagnoses, including migraine, drug toxicity, syncope, seizure, other neurological disorders, and ill-defined conditions. The mean±SD age of the participants was 68±15 years, 56% were female, and 71% were white (Table 1
). Forty-eight
percent of all participants were transported by EMS.
|
Twenty-seven percent of participants had a history of stroke (Table 2). Sixty-nine percent of the
participants correctly identified at least one stroke symptom in
response to an open-ended question. Only 38% of participants reported
that they had previously been told that they were at high risk for
stroke. Thirty-eight percent of participants reported that they had
previously been given information about stroke symptoms. When prompted
about concerns that might have contributed to their decision to delay
seeking care for their symptoms, the most common was that they did not
think that their symptoms were serious (37%). Few patients agreed that
worries about the cost of their treatment (12%) or concerns about
bothering their physician (13%) were associated with their decision to
delay seeking care for their symptoms. However, 45% of those who did
not think their symptoms were serious were diagnosed with stroke, and
another 25% were diagnosed with TIA.
|
Patients who used EMS had significantly shorter times from symptom
onset to arrival, time to seeing an EP, time to CT scan, and time to
being seen by a neurologist (Table 3).
Patients who used EMS were also significantly more likely to arrive
within 2 hours (P=0.012) and 3 hours (P=0.035)
than were patients who did not use EMS.
|
EMS use was highest among those with intracerebral hemorrhage (71%), followed by those with ischemic stroke (60%), those with nonstroke diagnoses (43%), and those with TIA (39%). By use of the Scheffé method to adjust for multiple comparisons, EMS use was statistically different only between those with TIA and those with ischemic stroke (P=0.005) and between those with nonstroke diagnoses and those with ischemic stroke (P=0.021).
After adjusting for study center, age was predictive of EMS use, with older patients more likely to use EMS than younger patients (OR for each 5-year increase 1.21, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.29). The remaining models were adjusted only for age and study center. Sex (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.72) and race (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.31) did not predict EMS use. Patients with better knowledge and access to information regarding stroke symptoms were not more likely to use EMS. Surprisingly, those with knowledge of stroke symptoms (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98) and those who reported having previously received information about stroke symptoms (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.91) were less likely to use EMS. Similarly, those who reported a bad prior experience with physicians or hospitals were less likely to use EMS (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89). Those who lived alone were also less likely to use EMS (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96).
A heightened sense of urgency about the symptoms was associated with greater EMS use (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.62), whereas concern for cost was not (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71). Another strong predictor of EMS use was having someone other than the patient first identify that there was a problem (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.44). There was no association between EMS use and history of stroke, educational level, time of day of symptom onset, day of the week of symptom onset (weekend or weekday), or location of symptom onset (eg, at home or at work).
When the analyses were restricted to those with confirmed strokes or TIA (n=358), the ORs remained essentially unchanged. The associations between knowledge of stroke symptoms and EMS use (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.31), between sense of urgency and EMS use (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.47), and between living alone and EMS use (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.13) were slightly attenuated.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The use of EMS by patients with stroke symptoms markedly decreased both prehospital and in-hospital delay. Older people were more likely to use EMS, as were individuals with diagnoses of ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. After adjusting for age and study center, an important predictor of EMS use was having someone other than the patient first identify that there was a problem. The individual’s sense of urgency was also an important predictor in the entire study population, although its importance was diminished when restricted to confirmed strokes/TIAs. Reporting a bad prior experience with physicians and/or hospitals was associated with statistically significantly decreased EMS use. Knowledge and awareness of stroke symptoms was not associated with increased EMS use. Factors related to timely access to medical care for stroke symptoms are important because they may represent opportunities to reduce delays by guiding intervention strategy or identifying groups that are in particular need of intervention.
Prehospital Delay
Shorter transport time is probably not the primary determinant of
the association of EMS use with reduced prehospital delay time.
Previous studies have shown that travel time to the hospital is
actually a small proportion of the total prehospital delay period.
Because transport time is not the major component of prehospital
delay,7 the majority of the reduction in prehospital delay
due to EMS use must be attributed to other factors. People who perceive
their symptoms (or the symptoms of someone around them) as serious and
urgent are likely both to take quick action and to call 911. In
contrast, those who do not think their symptoms represent an
emergency are more likely to wait before taking any action and are less
likely to call 911. Accordingly, we found that those who expressed the
greatest sense of urgency were more likely to use EMS than those who
expressed less urgency.
In-Hospital Delay
There are several possible explanations for the shorter
in-hospital delay for those who use EMS compared with those who do not
use EMS. The first may be that patients arriving by EMS are most often
placed directly in a bed and are available to be seen by an EP
immediately, whereas patients arriving via the front door must first be
triaged before they can physically be brought to a bed. Registration
delays or lack of recognition of the urgency of the problem at triage
could further add to the delay.18 In addition, it is
possible that the mere fact of arriving by EMS raises the level of
concern for the patient by the physicians and ED staff.
Alternatively, patients arriving by EMS may be more severely ill and thus naturally would be seen by an EP sooner.10 Although the present study attempted to measure severity by use of both the Barthel Index20 and the Orpington Prognostic Scale,21 the large number of missing values made it impossible to adequately test this hypothesis. However, type of stroke was strongly associated with EMS use. Patients with hemorrhagic stroke were more likely to use EMS than were patients with ischemic stroke, and patients with either hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke were more likely to use EMS than were those with TIA. This supports the theory that patients who use EMS have more severe symptoms than patients not using EMS. Other studies suggest that severity does have a role in rapid response within the ED. Kothari et al22 found that patients arriving by Basic Cardiac Life Support transport had longer times to seeing EPs than did those arriving by Advanced Cardiac Life Support transport, indicating that the severity of the patient’s illness cannot be dismissed as a factor influencing delay.
The present study supports our previous work indicating that time from the onset of symptoms may also play a role in the perception of severity by the ED staff.18 Regardless of their beliefs about the usefulness of tissue plasminogen activator for ischemic stroke, the ED staff may regard someone whose symptoms have been present for only 1 hour as being different from someone whose symptoms have been present for >1 day. The data reported suggest that the time to being seen by an EP is decreased for those presenting within 3 hours of the onset of symptoms. However, as seen in our previous work,18 arrival by EMS still resulted in decreased times to seeing an EP and to time to CT, regardless of the length of out-of-hospital delay.
Associations With EMS Use
The direct association of age with EMS use replicates the findings
of Barsan et al,13 as did the lack of an association with
the sex of the patient. In contrast to their findings, however, no
association with race was found.13 A strong predictor of
EMS use was having somebody other than the patient first identify that
there was a problem. The key role of witnesses has been reported by
others.9 23
Patients with greater knowledge and awareness of stroke and its symptoms were not more likely to use EMS. In fact, those with knowledge of stroke symptoms and who reported having previously received information about stroke symptoms were less likely to use EMS. This is in agreement with findings by others that knowledge of stroke symptoms does not decrease delay time.7 10 12 24 It is possible that the lack of an association between knowledge of stroke symptoms and delay time is due to inadequate measurement of knowledge. In addition, having a history of stroke did not have an effect on EMS use. Other studies have found that a history of stroke does not decrease delay time.7 10 24 When patients are given information about stroke, more emphasis needs to be placed on the "call to action" and the emergency nature of stroke symptoms.
Limitations and Strengths
Prospective ED registries of specific patient complaints are
subject to advantages and limitations of data collection in a critical
care environment. One limitation was that many of the patients were
incapable of completing an interview and that responses from proxies
were used. This could influence the validity of some of the data
collected. However, every effort was made by the nurses in the ED to
interview the informant most familiar with the circumstances
surrounding the onset of symptoms. More important, many of the
questions (eg, about sense of urgency and concerns that might lead to
delay) could be answered only by the patient. Therefore, these
questions are subject to a large number of missing values, and the
distribution of missing values is biased, with the most severely
disabled patients being much more likely to have missing values. For
example, 10% of patients with a diagnosis of TIA were missing
responses to the sense-of-urgency question, whereas 24% and 30% of
patients with ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke,
respectively, had missing responses. It is unclear how the bias may
affect the results of the present study.
Nevertheless, a significant strength of the present study stems from its use of a standardized prospective interview questionnaire, instead of relying solely on medical record review. Such a review is often inadequate to obtain detailed data on the timing of symptom onset.6 The hospitals included in the present study represent a mix of urban and rural hospitals and of research and community hospitals in 3 geographic locations. The study population included roughly equal numbers of men and women and a substantial proportion of nonwhite participants. Consequently, these findings probably have broader generalizability.
Conclusions
EMS was underused in this population with stroke symptoms, with
less than half of the participants using EMS. Only sixty percent of
those with ischemic stroke used EMS. If the factors that
influence EMS use can be better understood, interventions could be
developed to increase EMS use among this population. The results from
the present study confirm findings that knowledge of stroke
symptoms is not sufficient to prompt people to take action. The
patient’s own sense of urgency about his or her symptoms and having a
bystander first identify that there was a problem were much more
important factors. Consequently, interventions aimed at increasing EMS
use among stroke patients need to stress the urgency of stroke symptoms
and the importance of calling 911 and need to be broad-based,
encompassing not only those at high risk for stroke but also their
friends and family members.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This study was funded by a grant from Glaxo Wellcome Inc and by a National Research Service Award, Cardiovascular Epidemiology Training Grant to E.B. Schroeder from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (grant 5-T32-HL-07055).
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Reprint requests to Emily B. Schroeder, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 137 East Franklin St, Suite 306, CB #8050, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8050.
Received June 5, 2000; revision received August 4, 2000; accepted August 22, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. American Heart Association. 2000 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update. Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; 1999.
2. Shahar E, McGovern PG, Smith MA, Jacobs DR, Arnett DK, Luepker RV. Recent trends in stroke mortality rate, incidence, and case-fatality in metropolitan Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota: the Minnesota Stroke Survey. Circulation.. 2000;101:720. Abstract P19.
3.
The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and
Stroke (NINDS) rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen
activator for acute ischemic stroke. N
Engl J Med. 1995;333:1581–1587.
4. Adams HP, Brott TG, Furlan AJ, Gomez CR, Grotta J, Helgason CM, Kwiatkowski T, Lyden PD, Marler JR, Torner J, Feinberg W, Mayberg M, Thies W. Guidelines for thrombolytic therapy for acute stroke: a supplement to the guidelines for the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Stroke.. 1996;27:1711–1718.
5.
Alberts MJ, Hademenos G, Latchaw RE, Jagoda A, Marler
JR, Mayberg MR, Starke RD, Todd HW, Viste KM, Girgus M, Shephard T, Emr
M, Shwayder P, Walker MD. Recommendations for the establishment of
primary stroke centers. JAMA. 2000;283:3102–3109.
6. Kothari R, Jauch E, Broderick J, Brott T, Sauerbeck L, Khoury J, Liu T. Acute stroke: delays to presentation and emergency department evaluation. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;33:3–8.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Rosamond WD, Gorton RA, Hinn AR, Hohenhaus SM, Morris DL. Rapid response to stroke symptoms: the Delay in Accessing Stroke Healthcare (DASH) Study. Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5:45–51.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8.
Menon SC, Pandey DK, Morgenstern LB. Critical factors
determining access to acute stroke care. Neurology. 1998;51:427–432.
9.
Wester P, Radberg J, Lundgren B, Peltonen M, for the
Seek-Medical-Attention-in-Time Study Group. Factors associated with
delayed admission to hospital and in-hospital delays in acute stroke
and TIA. Stroke. 1999;30:40–48.
10.
Williams LS, Bruno A, Rouch D, Marriott DJ. Stroke
patients’ knowledge of stroke: influence on time to
presentation. Stroke. 1997;28:912–915.
11.
Bratina P, Greenberg L, Pasteur W, Grotta JC. Current
emergency department management of stroke in Houston, Texas.
Stroke. 1995;26:409–414.
12. Lin CS, Tsai J, Woo P, Chang H. Prehospital delay and emergency department management of ischemic stroke patients in Taiwan, R.O.C. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1999;3:194–200.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13.
Barsan WG, Brott TG, Broderick JP, Haley EC, Levy DE,
Marler JR. Time of hospital presentation in patients with
acute stroke. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:2558–2561.
14. Barer D, Main A, Lodwick R. Practicability of early treatment of acute stroke. Lancet. 1992;339:1540–1541.
15.
Salisbury HR, Banks BJ, Footitt DR, Winner SJ, Reynolds
DJM. Delay in presentation of patients with acute stroke to
hospital in Oxford. Q J Med. 1998;91:635–640.
16. Ferro JM, Melo TP, Oliveira V, Crespo M, Canhao P, Pinto AN. An analysis of the admission delay of acute strokes. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1994;4:72–75.
17.
Fogelholm R, Murros K, Rissanen A, Ilmavirta M. Factors
delaying hospital admission after acute stroke. Stroke. 1996;27:398–400.
18. Morris DL, Rosamond WD, Hinn AR, Gorton RA. Time delays in accessing stroke care in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6:218–223.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Kothari R. Acute Stroke. Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; 1998.
20. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–65.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Kalra L, Crome P. The role of prognostic scores in targeting stroke rehabilitation in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41:396–400.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22.
Kothari R, Barsan W, Brott T, Broderick J, Ashbrock S.
Frequency and accuracy of prehospital diagnosis of acute stroke.
Stroke. 1995;26:937–941.
23. Lannehoa Y, Bouget J, Pinel JF, Garnier N, Leblanc JP, Branger B. Analysis of time management in stroke patients in three French emergency departments: from stroke onset to computed tomography scan. Eur J Emerg Med. 1999;6:95–103.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24.
Feldmann E, Gordon N, Brooks JM, Brass LM, Fayad PB,
Sawaya KL, Nazareno F, Levine SR. Factors associated with early
presentation of acute stroke. Stroke. 1993;24:1805–1810.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  N Sprigg, C Machili, M E Otter, A Wilson, and T G Robinson A systematic review of delays in seeking medical attention after transient ischaemic attack J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, August 1, 2009; 80(8): 871 - 875. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. M. Frendl, D. G. Strauss, B. K. Underhill, and L. B. Goldstein Lack of Impact of Paramedic Training and Use of the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale on Stroke Patient Identification and On-Scene Time Stroke, March 1, 2009; 40(3): 754 - 756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. M. Rose, W. D. Rosamond, S. L. Huston, C. V. Murphy, and C. H. Tegeler Predictors of Time From Hospital Arrival to Initial Brain-Imaging Among Suspected Stroke Patients: The North Carolina Collaborative Stroke Registry Stroke, December 1, 2008; 39(12): 3262 - 3267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. S Lasserson, A. Chandratheva, M. F Giles, D. Mant, and P. M Rothwell Influence of general practice opening hours on delay in seeking medical attention after transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke: prospective population based study BMJ, September 18, 2008; 337(sep18_3): a1569 - a1569. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A Maestroni, C Mandelli, D Manganaro, B Zecca, P Rossi, V Monzani, and G Torgano Factors influencing delay in presentation for acute stroke in an emergency department in Milan, Italy Emerg. Med. J., June 1, 2008; 25(6): 340 - 345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Mikulik, L. Bunt, D. Hrdlicka, L. Dusek, D. Vaclavik, and J. Kryza Calling 911 in Response to Stroke: A Nationwide Study Assessing Definitive Individual Behavior Stroke, June 1, 2008; 39(6): 1844 - 1849. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Mosley, M. Nicol, G. Donnan, I. Patrick, F. Kerr, and H. Dewey The Impact of Ambulance Practice on Acute Stroke Care Stroke, October 1, 2007; 38(10): 2765 - 2770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Jarrell, A. Tadros, C. Whiteman, T. Crocco, and S. M. Davis National Healthline Responses to a Stroke Scenario: Implications for Early Intervention Stroke, August 1, 2007; 38(8): 2376 - 2378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. W. Alexandrov Solving the Issue of Patient Arrival Time: A Call for Vigilant Action Stroke, August 1, 2007; 38(8): 2219 - 2220. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. P. Adams Jr, G. del Zoppo, M. J. Alberts, D. L. Bhatt, L. Brass, A. Furlan, R. L. Grubb, R. T. Higashida, E. C. Jauch, C. Kidwell, et al. Guidelines for the Early Management of Adults With Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council, Clinical Cardiology Council, Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention Council, and the Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease and Quality of Care Outcomes in Research Interdisciplinary Working Groups: The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline as an educational tool for neurologists. Circulation, May 22, 2007; 115(20): e478 - e534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. P. Adams Jr, G. del Zoppo, M. J. Alberts, D. L. Bhatt, L. Brass, A. Furlan, R. L. Grubb, R. T. Higashida, E. C. Jauch, C. Kidwell, et al. Guidelines for the Early Management of Adults With Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/ American Stroke Association Stroke Council, Clinical Cardiology Council, Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention Council, and the Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease and Quality of Care Outcomes in Research Interdisciplinary Working Groups: The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline as an educational tool for neurologists Stroke, May 1, 2007; 38(5): 1655 - 1711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Kobayashi, M. Skowronska, T. Litwin, and A. Czlonkowska Lack of experience of intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke does not influence the proportion of patients treated Emerg. Med. J., February 1, 2007; 24(2): 96 - 99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. K. Moser, L. P. Kimble, M. J. Alberts, A. Alonzo, J. B. Croft, K. Dracup, K. R. Evenson, A. S. Go, M. M. Hand, R. U. Kothari, et al. Reducing Delay in Seeking Treatment by Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Stroke: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Stroke Council Circulation, July 11, 2006; 114(2): 168 - 182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Place of Death After Stroke--United States, 1999-2002 JAMA, June 21, 2006; 295(23): 2717 - 2718. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. O. Kleindorfer, C. J. Lindsell, J. P. Broderick, M. L. Flaherty, D. Woo, I. Ewing, P. Schmit, C. Moomaw, K. Alwell, A. Pancioli, et al. Community Socioeconomic Status and Prehospital Times in Acute Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack: Do Poorer Patients Have Longer Delays From 911 Call to the Emergency Department? Stroke, June 1, 2006; 37(6): 1508 - 1513. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Scott For Rich and Poor, the Message Is Still "Dial 9-1-1": But Is It Getting Through? Stroke, June 1, 2006; 37(6): 1354 - 1355. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Z. Deng, M. J. Reeves, B. S. Jacobs, G. L. Birbeck, R. U. Kothari, S. L. Hickenbottom, A. J. Mullard, S. Wehner, K. Maddox, A. Majid, et al. IV tissue plasminogen activator use in acute stroke: Experience from a statewide registry Neurology, February 14, 2006; 66(3): 306 - 312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Alberts, R. E. Latchaw, W. R. Selman, T. Shephard, M. N. Hadley, L. M. Brass, W. Koroshetz, J. R. Marler, J. Booss, R. D. Zorowitz, et al. Recommendations for Comprehensive Stroke Centers: A Consensus Statement From the Brain Attack Coalition Stroke, July 1, 2005; 36(7): 1597 - 1616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task Force Members, L. H. Schwamm, A. Pancioli, J. E. Acker III, L. B. Goldstein, R. D. Zorowitz, T. J. Shephard, P. Moyer, M. Gorman, S. C. Johnston, et al. Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care: Recommendations From the American Stroke Association's Task Force on the Development of Stroke Systems Stroke, March 1, 2005; 36(3): 690 - 703. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. H. Schwamm, A. Pancioli, J. E. Acker III, L. B. Goldstein, R. D. Zorowitz, T. J. Shephard, P. Moyer, M. Gorman, S. C. Johnston, P. W. Duncan, et al. Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care: Recommendations From the American Stroke Association's Task Force on the Development of Stroke Systems Circulation, March 1, 2005; 111(8): 1078 - 1091. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Acute Stroke Pilot Registry (CASPR) Inv Prioritizing interventions to improve rates of thrombolysis for ischemic stroke Neurology, February 22, 2005; 64(4): 654 - 659. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Kleindorfer, B. Kissela, A. Schneider, D. Woo, J. Khoury, R. Miller, K. Alwell, J. Gebel, J. Szaflarski, A. Pancioli, et al. Eligibility for Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Population-Based Study Stroke, February 1, 2004; 35 (2): e27 - e29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. E. Stahl, K. L. Furie, S. Gleason, and G. S. Gazelle Stroke: Effect of Implementing an Evaluation and Treatment Protocol Compliant with NINDS Recommendations Radiology, September 1, 2003; 228(3): 659 - 668. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Crocco, T. Gullett, S. M. Davis, N. Flores, L. Sauerbeck, E. Jauch, B. Threlkeld, B. Pio, M. Ottaway, A. Pancioli, et al. Feasibility of Neuroprotective Agent Administration by Prehospital Personnel in an Urban Setting Stroke, August 1, 2003; 34(8): 1918 - 1922. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. L. Katzan, T. W. Graber, A. J. Furlan, S. Sundararajan, C. A. Sila, G. Houser, and D. M. Landis Cuyahoga County Operation Stroke Speed of Emergency Department Evaluation and Compliance With National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Time Targets Stroke, April 1, 2003; 34(4): 994 - 998. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Yoneda, T. Uehara, H. Yamasaki, Y. Kita, M. Tabuchi, and E. Mori Hospital-Based Study of the Care and Cost of Acute Ischemic Stroke in Japan Stroke, March 1, 2003; 34(3): 718 - 724. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. T. Schneider, A. M. Pancioli, J. C. Khoury, E. Rademacher, A. Tuchfarber, R. Miller, D. Woo, B. Kissela, and J. P. Broderick Trends in Community Knowledge of the Warning Signs and Risk Factors for Stroke JAMA, January 15, 2003; 289(3): 343 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Harraf, A. K Sharma, M. M Brown, K. R Lees, R. I Vass, and L. Kalra A multicentre observational study of presentation and early assessment of acute stroke BMJ, July 6, 2002; 325(7354): 17 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. B. Morgenstern, L. Staub, W. Chan, T. H. Wein, L. K. Bartholomew, M. King, R. A. Felberg, W. S. Burgin, J. Groff, S. L. Hickenbottom, et al. Improving Delivery of Acute Stroke Therapy: The TLL Temple Foundation Stroke Project Stroke, January 1, 2002; 33(1): 160 - 166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. R. Evenson, D. L. Morris, W. D. Rosamond, J. H. Brice, S. L. Huston, and E. M. Puckett Addressing Healthy People 2010 Objectives for Stroke Stroke, July 1, 2001; 32(7): 1692 - 1692. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Education Still Needed on the Urgency of Stroke Care Journal Watch Neurology, February 21, 2001; 2001(221): 2 - 2. [Full Text]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||