MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersReseau canadien de recherche respiratoirePatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Psychological interventionEmergency departmentTransitional careEmergency medicineEmergency medical servicesHealth careMedical emergencyRandomized controlled trialAcute careIntervention (counseling)Descriptive statisticsAcute strokeNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207