Effects of Centralizing Acute Stroke Services on Stroke Care Provision in Two Large Metropolitan Areas in England
Open Access
- 1 August 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Stroke
- Vol. 46 (8), 2244-2251
- https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.115.009723
Abstract
Background and Purpose—: In 2010, Greater Manchester and London centralized acute stroke care into hyperacute units (Greater Manchester=3, London=8), with additional units providing ongoing specialist stroke care nearer patients’ homes. Greater Manchester patients presenting within 4 hours of symptom onset were eligible for hyperacute unit admission; all London patients were eligible. Research indicates that postcentralization, only London’s stroke mortality fell significantly more than elsewhere in England. This article attempts to explain this difference by analyzing how centralization affects provision of evidence-based clinical interventions. Methods—: Controlled before and after analysis was conducted, using national audit data covering Greater Manchester, London, and a noncentralized urban comparator (38 623 adult stroke patients, April 2008 to December 2012). Likelihood of receiving all interventions measured reliably in pre- and postcentralization audits (brain scan; stroke unit admission; receiving antiplatelet; physiotherapist, nutrition, and swallow assessments) was calculated, adjusting for age, sex, stroke-type, consciousness, and whether stroke occurred in-hospital. Results—: Postcentralization, likelihood of receiving interventions increased in all areas. London patients were overall significantly more likely to receive interventions, for example, brain scan within 3 hours: Greater Manchester=65.2% (95% confidence interval=64.3–66.2); London=72.1% (71.4–72.8); comparator=55.5% (54.8–56.3). Hyperacute units were significantly more likely to provide interventions, but fewer Greater Manchester patients were admitted to these (Greater Manchester=39%; London=93%). Differences resulted from contrasting hyperacute unit referral criteria and how reliably they were followed. Conclusions—: Centralized systems admitting all stroke patients to hyperacute units, as in London, are significantly more likely to provide evidence-based clinical interventions. This may help explain previous research showing better outcomes associated with fully centralized models.This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact of centralising acute stroke services in English metropolitan areas on mortality and length of hospital stay: difference-in-differences analysisBMJ, 2014
- Hyperacute stroke care and NHS England's business planBMJ, 2014
- Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for strokeEmergencias, 2013
- Prehospital Triage to Primary Stroke Centers and Rate of Stroke ThrombolysisJAMA Neurology, 2013
- Impact on Clinical and Cost Outcomes of a Centralized Approach to Acute Stroke Care in London: A Comparative Effectiveness Before and After ModelPLOS ONE, 2013
- Associations between the organisation of stroke services, process of care, and mortality in England: prospective cohort studyBMJ, 2013
- Proportion of Patients Treated With Thrombolysis in a Centralized Versus a Decentralized Acute Stroke Care SettingStroke, 2012
- Organized Stroke CareStroke, 2006
- A study of the workload and effectiveness of a comprehensive acute stroke serviceJournal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 2005
- Immediate Computed Tomography Scanning of Acute Stroke Is Cost-Effective and Improves Quality of LifeStroke, 2004