Comparison of Code Stroke Response Times Between Emergency Department and Inpatient Settings in a Primary Stroke Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In stroke, timeliness of care is essential for optimal patient outcomes. While opportunities for code response time improvements have been extensively documented in the medical literature, this retrospective study aimed at providing data and insights for the development of a quality improvement project in the same hospital, with the ultimate goal of increasing code stroke response speeds without compromising the quality of care. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Data were collected from weekly code stroke review meetings between January and December 2020 from both the emergency department (ED), and inpatient settings from one Joint Commission certified Primary Stroke Center. All code stroke cases with a computed tomography (CT) scan were included. For cases that received tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), variables collected were time from code-to-CT scan start, code-to-tPA, from CT scan start to tPA, and from CT scan completion to tPA. For code stroke cases that did not receive tPA, variables collected were code-to-CT scan start, code-to-CT scan read, from CT scan start to CT scan read, and from CT scan completion to CT scan read. Then, the ED’s code stroke response times were compared with those in the inpatient setting by using a two-tailed t -test and a 95% confidence interval. Results: From a sample of 206 code stroke activations in 2020, 157 activations met the study’s criteria. For cases that received tPA, the difference in the mean code-to-CT start times between ED and the inpatient settings (9.01 and 24.99 min, respectively) was statistically significant with a P-value < 0.05. For cases that did not receive tPA, the differences between ED and the inpatient settings in the mean code-to-CT start times (14.25 and 30.74 min, respectively) and code-to-CT read times (34.25 and 54.95 min, respectively) were also statistically significant with a P-value < 0.05. Conclusion: This study highlights the urgent need to improve code-to-CT times in this hospital’s inpatient setting since ED code stroke times were markedly better from a statistical viewpoint. Improving the quality of care will have to address the evident delay in transporting inpatients to the CT scanner after a code stroke has been activated. J Neurol Res. 2021;11(3-4):47-53 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr688
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".