Stroke Care Delivery in Institutions Participating in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Guidelines and performance indicators have been established for acute stroke care. However, little is known about the process of stroke care delivery in Canada. METHODS: The Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network (RCSN) captured detailed clinical data on patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack seen at 21 acute care institutions across Canada. Data from phase 1 of the RCSN (June 2001 to February 2002) were used to determine the use of evidence-based acute stroke care interventions in participating institutions. RESULTS: Overall, 4439 patients were seen during the study time frame and 1701 (38%) consented to full data collection. Thirty-one percent received care on a stroke unit or from a mobile stroke team. Among patients with ischemic stroke, 7% received thrombolysis, 80% underwent carotid imaging, 89% received antithrombotic agents, and 54% of those with atrial fibrillation received warfarin. There were significant intersite variations in the delivery of all of these interventions except for the use of antithrombotic agents, and these persisted after adjustment for age, sex, stroke type, and other comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in institutions participating in the RCSN received high-quality stroke care based on a number of performance measures. However, gaps exist in the provision of other elements of stroke care, particularly organized inpatient stroke care and warfarin for atrial fibrillation. Future research should explore explanations for these findings and focus on solutions to deficiencies in care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".