Improving Access and Efficiency of Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment Across Four Canadian Provinces: A Stepped-Wedge Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The translation of standard-of-care in acute ischemic stroke reperfusion interventions into practice is well established, but multifactorial obstacles exist in the complete adoption, which has led to inequities in access and delivery of services. The objective of this study was to improve access and efficiency of ischemic stroke treatment across four Atlantic Canadian Provinces. Methods A stepped-wedge cluster trial was conducted over 30 months with 3 clusters covering 34 sites. The trial was conducted across all 4 Atlantic Canadian provinces: Nova Scotia (NS), New Brunswick (NB), Prince Edward Island (PE), and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). The design was quasi-randomized, with each cluster associated with one or more provinces: cluster 1 – NS; cluster 2 – NB and PE; and cluster 3 – NL. The patient population was all ischemic stroke patients across all 4 provinces. The intervention was a 6-month modified Quality Improvement Collaborative (mQIC), which was modified from the Breakthrough Series Collaborative to be half of the 1-year period and conducted virtually. The intervention consisted of assembling an interdisciplinary improvement team, 2 full-day workshops, webinars, and virtual site visits. Suggested changes included 6 process improvement strategies. Results Over the trial period, 8594 ischemic stroke patients were included, out of which 1576 patients received acute treatment. The proportion of patients that received treatment did not increase significantly with the intervention [0.4% increase for patients that received thrombolysis and/or EVT (p=0.68)]. Median door-to-needle time was reduced by 9.2 minutes with the intervention (p=0.01). Cluster 3 saw the greatest improvements in both access and efficiency. Conclusions A mQIC intervention resulted in improvement of process measures like door-to-needle time. Quality improvement initiatives may need to be longer to allow full implementation and tailored for each health system to ensure that each system sees improvement. In-person activities might be critical to ensure fidelity of the intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".