This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 40/5/1793    most recent STROKEAHA.108.531053v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gropen, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gropen, T. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Emergency treatment of Stroke Primary and Secondary Stroke Prevention Rehabilitation, Stroke

(Stroke. 2009;40:1793.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Regional Implementation of the Stroke Systems of Care Model

Recommendations of the Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium

Toby Gropen, MD; Zainab Magdon-Ismail, Ed.M, MPH; David Day, BS; Shannon Melluzzo, BA; Lee H. Schwamm, MD on behalf of the NECC Advisory Group

From the Long Island College Hospital (T.G.), Brooklyn, NY; American Stroke Association (Z.M.-I., D.D., S.M.), Dallas, Tex; and Massachusetts General Hospital (L.H.S.), Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to Toby Gropen, MD, Chairman, Department of Neurology and Director, Stroke Center, Long Island College Hospital, 339 Hicks Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. E-mail tgropen{at}chpnet.org

Background and Purpose— The Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium was established to examine regional disparities and recommend strategies to improve stroke care based on the Stroke Systems of Care Model.

Methods— An annual summit was first held in 2006, bringing together public health officials, researchers, physicians, nurses, health professionals, state legislators, and advocacy organizations. Best practices and evidence-based interventions within each of the Stroke Systems of Care Model components were presented. Six writing groups were tasked with cataloging each state’s current activities and identifying goals for the region.

Results— There were significant variations in the delivery of stroke care, particularly in urban versus rural areas, as evidenced by the availability of designated stroke centers and neurologists, and stroke-related death rates. Recommendations to address variations in care delivery included the use of a common stroke data collection system, unified community education criteria, improvements to emergency medical services dispatch and training, adoption of prehospital care measures, creation of a web-based central repository of acute stroke protocols and order sets, a regional atlas of stroke resources and capabilities, a stroke patient "report card" to promote adherence to secondary prevention strategies, and explicit standards for rehabilitation services.

Conclusions— Significant disparities in the delivery of stroke care across the 8 state-region have been identified. Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium demonstrates that multistate regional collaboration is a viable process for developing specific regional recommendations to address those disparities. Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium is assessing the usefulness of the Stroke Systems of Care Model as a framework for implementing a regional approach to stroke across the continuum of care.

Key Words: regional implementation • stroke • stroke systems