ArticleJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2014
Process improvement to enhance existing stroke team activity toward more timely thrombolytic treatment.
Article in Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Process mining framework with time perspective for understanding acute care: a case study of AIS in hospitals.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of emergency physician determinations of the need for thrombolytic therapy in acute stroke.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2019Article
- Improvement of Endovascular Stroke Treatment: A 24-Hour Neuroradiological On-Site Service Is Not Enough.BioMed research international · 2018Article
- Decision-Making Support Using a Standardized Script and Visual Decision Aid to Reduce Door-to-Needle Time in Stroke.Journal of stroke · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeProcess improvement (PI) is an approach for enhancing the existing quality improvement process by making changes while keeping the existing process. We have shown that implementation of a stroke code program using a computerized physician order entry system is effective in reducing the in-hospital time delay to thrombolysis in acute stroke patients. We investigated whether implementation of this PI could further reduce the time delays by continuous improvement of the existing process.
methodsAfter determining a key indicator [time interval from emergency department (ED) arrival to intravenous (IV) thrombolysis] and conducting data analysis, the target time from ED arrival to IV thrombolysis in acute stroke patients was set at 40 min. The key indicator was monitored continuously at a weekly stroke conference. The possible reasons for the delay were determined in cases for which IV thrombolysis was not administered within the target time and, where possible, the problems were corrected. The time intervals from ED arrival to the various evaluation steps and treatment before and after implementation of the PI were compared.
resultsThe median time interval from ED arrival to IV thrombolysis in acute stroke patients was significantly reduced after implementation of the PI (from 63.5 to 45 min, p=0.001). The variation in the time interval was also reduced. A reduction in the evaluation time intervals was achieved after the PI [from 23 to 17 min for computed tomography scanning (p=0.003) and from 35 to 29 min for complete blood counts (p=0.006)].
conclusionsPI is effective for continuous improvement of the existing process by reducing the time delays between ED arrival and IV thrombolysis in acute stroke patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.