MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3205623093 · doi:10.1111/acem.14401

Emergency department utilization after hospitalization discharge for acute stroke: The COMprehensive Post‐Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) study

2021· letter· en· W3205623093 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Wayne D. Rosamond, Anna Kucharska‐Newton, Sara B. Jones, Matthew A. Psioda, Barbara J. Lutz, Anna Johnson, Sylvia W. Coleman, Samantha Schilsky, Mehul D. Patel, Pamela W. Duncan

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2021
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesReseau canadien de recherche respiratoirePatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Mots-clésMedicineStroke (engine)Psychological interventionEmergency departmentTransitional careEmergency medicineEmergency medical servicesHealth careMedical emergencyRandomized controlled trialAcute careIntervention (counseling)Descriptive statisticsAcute strokeNursingSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Each year nearly 800,000 people in the United States experience a stroke.1 Those that survive are at high risk for complications after hospital discharge. Providing appropriate care during the recovery from this complex condition is a challenge for patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Understanding emergency department (ED) utilization after a stroke may provide insights into long-term management of stroke, inform interventions, improve patient outcomes, and reduce medical costs. A comprehensive transitional care model for post-acute stroke care may influence the need to seek ED care for downstream events after a stroke. To date, most transitional care trials exploring post-stroke healthcare utilization were conducted outside of the U.S. health-care system.2 We examined data from the Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) study, a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial of a post-discharge transitional care model for stroke survivors and their caregivers compared with usual care.3, 4 The COMPASS transitional care intervention was designed to integrate medical and community resources to meet the needs of stroke survivors and caregivers and optimize outcomes.3, 4 As part of a pre-planned analysis of secondary outcomes,4 we used Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims files linked with COMPASS study data to characterize ED utilization during the first year after initial hospitalization for patients with acute stroke who were discharged home. Descriptive statistics were generated according to study arm and subgroups of interest. We analyzed data from 648 patients from 19 hospitals randomized to implement the COMPASS intervention and 702 patients from 20 hospitals randomized to usual care. Patient characteristics were similar according to study arm, except the intervention group had a greater proportion of women, whites, and individuals living outside of metropolitan areas. The distributions of the two groups were similar with respect to stroke severity, medical history and comorbidities, hospital length of stay, and ambulatory status at discharge. Analysis of time-to-event endpoints focused on estimation of the cause-specific hazard and, thus, censored patients who died. Analyses were performed with Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for covariates selected a priori: age, sex, race, stroke type, NIH Stroke Scale score, history of transient ischemic attack, and history of stroke. Further adjustment for additional covariates did not meaningfully change estimands of interest. Overall, more than half of patients had an ED visit during the 1-yr follow-up period, and 47% had a stand-alone ED visit that did not result in subsequent hospitalization (Table 1). The vast majority of all ED visits (67%) did not lead directly to admission to the hospital. The total number of visits to the ED was comparable between usual care and intervention groups. The rate (per person-year) of stand-alone ED visits during the 1-yr follow-up was also similar between usual care and intervention groups (1.23 per person-year and 1.10 per person-year, respectively). Similarly, the median number of days until first stand-alone ED visit was comparable between usual care and intervention groups (88 and 103 days, respectively). Patterns for any ED visit (including those linked to hospital admission) were similar (Table 1). The hazard ratio for the intervention compared to usual care for being seen in the ED during the 1-yr follow-up period was 1.06 (95% confidence interval: 0.89, 1.25). This suggests no difference in ED utilization according to treatment assignment after adjusting for patient baseline covariates. Stratified analysis of ED visits according to geographic region (urban, rural) and dual Medicaid coverage showed a general trend for higher rates in usual care compared to intervention, although none of the differences were statistically significant. Of note, the subgroup with the highest ED utilization rate was seen among patients dually eligible for Medicaid coverage in the usual care group (3.5 visits per-person year). The most common specific reason for an ED visit was for a cerebrovascular disease episode (70% ischemic stroke, 8% hemorrhagic stroke, 21% other) followed by injuries, accounting for 11% and 10% of all visits, respectively. Non-specific signs and symptoms accounted for 19% of all visits. There were no statistically significant differences in ED diagnosis between intervention and usual care groups. Post-hospitalization is often a period of increased vulnerability for patients, and stroke survivors are at particularly high risk for post-discharge complications.5 We found that it is common for stroke patients to be seen in the ED within 1 yr of being discharged home and that the vast majority were not readmitted to the hospital. More than 20% were seen in the ED three or more times within the first year after being discharged home. A post-discharge transitional care approach was not associated with fewer ED visits compared to usual care. A further understanding of the urgent and emergency care needs of stroke survivors may inform future care models for patients with complex conditions such as stroke. All statements in this presentation, including its findings and conclusions, are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee. The COMPASS study is registered at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier NCT02588664). All other authors report no conflicts. WR and PD conceived of this study; WR, PD, SJ, AKN, MP, BL, SC, and AJ participated in obtaining funding for this study; AKN, SJ, and WR led data acquisition; SJ, MP, AKN, WR, AJ, and SS conducted statistical analysis and data management; all authors participated in interpretation of the data, drafting of the manuscript, editing, and revision.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,026
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,051

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,307 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcademic Emergency MedicineMême sujetAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementTravaux en français237 207