Abstract T P276: Calling Stroke Alert: Does It Make a Difference in the Chain of Survival?

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether the stroke alert process results in improved outcomes, as reflected in door to lytic times and other outcome measures. Introduction: The diagnosis and treatment of stroke is time-sensitive and should be inclusive of all seven D’s in the “chain of survival” - Detection, Dispatch, Delivery, Door, Data, Decision and Drug (Adams, Stroke, 2007). Early stroke activation is part of the “Delivery” which incorporates transport and management by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Clinical suspicion of stroke by EMS resulted in a process of early activation which was labeled “Stroke Alert.” This expedited the code stroke process upon arrival, preparing the hospital based stroke team to provide immediate triage and evaluation. The goal was to improve clinical efficiency and possibly clinical outcomes. Methods: • Implementation of a notification process from EMS to ED - Stroke Alert • Incorporated Stroke Alert to include Stroke Response Team (SRT) nurses January 22, 2011 • Retrospective review of internal stroke database (January 22, 2011 to July 2013) for comparative analysis of Stroke Alerts called versus those where no stroke alert was called • Evaluate clinical outcomes directly related to Stroke Alert process Results: From January 22, 2011 to July 2013: Stroke Alert Called: • 37 t-PA patients and 14 of those, 37.8%, met the 60 minute benchmark • Average Door to Lytic time - 65 minutes Stroke Alert NOT Called: • 35 t-PA patients and 10 of those, 28.6% met the 60 minute benchmark • Average Door to Lytic time - 79 minutes Conclusions: The ability for a SRT to meet the golden hour of stroke benchmark occurs more frequently when a Stroke Alert is called to the SRT nurse. Future plans include review of stroke severity scores, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition, to determine the impact a Stroke Alert may have on clinical outcomes.