Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia · 2026
Patient and hospital factors associated with disparities in acute stroke treatment in community and academic hospitals.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shen Jerry, Corlin Laura, Coté Kathryn E, Pudlo Megan E, Leung Lester Y
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Systemic barriers may affect identification, emergency transportation (EMS), and care coordination for people with stroke. We assessed patient- and hospital-level factors for associations with pre-hospital and emergency department care. We compared trends for patients presenting to an academic medical center (AMC) versus community hospitals (CHs).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at an AMC (Tufts Medical Center) with 542 patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack between 1/1/2018-12/31/2020 who presented directly to AMC or presented to AMC as a transfer from initial contact CHs. Primary outcomes were EMS use, stroke code activation, door-to-CT time, and door-to-needle time.
RESULTS: AMC patients identifying as non-Hispanic Asian (odds ratio (OR) = 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.13-0.47) and Hispanic (OR = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.05-0.72) and CH non-Hispanic Black/African-American patients (OR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.05-0.62) were less likely to use EMS compared to non-Hispanic white patients. Patients with non-English primary language were less likely to use EMS (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.23-0.63) compared to English-speaking patients in both hospital settings. CH Hispanic patients were less likely to have stroke code activation (OR = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.05-0.86) compared to non-Hispanic white patients. CH patients were less likely to have stroke code activation (OR = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.07-0.19), had 31% shorter door-to-CT time (95% CI = 15-43% shorter), and had 29% longer door-to-needle time (95% CI = 5-58% longer).
CONCLUSION: Patient-level factors and hospital setting were associated with differences in acute care suggesting opportunities for community outreach on EMS use, interventions to alleviate language barriers, and a need to address systemic biases.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at an AMC (Tufts Medical Center) with 542 patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack between 1/1/2018-12/31/2020 who presented directly to AMC or presented to AMC as a transfer from initial contact CHs. Primary outcomes were EMS use, stroke code activation, door-to-CT time, and door-to-needle time.
RESULTS: AMC patients identifying as non-Hispanic Asian (odds ratio (OR) = 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.13-0.47) and Hispanic (OR = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.05-0.72) and CH non-Hispanic Black/African-American patients (OR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.05-0.62) were less likely to use EMS compared to non-Hispanic white patients. Patients with non-English primary language were less likely to use EMS (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.23-0.63) compared to English-speaking patients in both hospital settings. CH Hispanic patients were less likely to have stroke code activation (OR = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.05-0.86) compared to non-Hispanic white patients. CH patients were less likely to have stroke code activation (OR = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.07-0.19), had 31% shorter door-to-CT time (95% CI = 15-43% shorter), and had 29% longer door-to-needle time (95% CI = 5-58% longer).
CONCLUSION: Patient-level factors and hospital setting were associated with differences in acute care suggesting opportunities for community outreach on EMS use, interventions to alleviate language barriers, and a need to address systemic biases.