Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has made neurology clinic waiting times longer. To prevent a build-up of patients waiting, we introduced a neurology advanced referral management system (NARMS) to deal with new referrals from GPs, using advice, investigations, or the telephone, as alternatives to face-to-face (FF) assessment. Methods For six months, electronic referrals from GPs were triaged to the above categories. We recorded the numbers in each category, patient satisfaction, inter-consultant triage variation, re-referrals, and calculated CO2 emissions. Results There were 573 referrals. Triage destinations were advice 33%, investigations 27%, telephone 17%, and FF 33%. Of patients referred for MRI, 95% were happy not to be seen if their investigation was normal. Less-experienced consultants triaged 20% and 30% respectively, to advice or investigations, compared with 40% by a triage-experienced neurologist. Four percent were re-referred. Numbers on the waiting list did not increase. CO2 emissions were reduced by 50%. Discussion Two thirds of neurological referrals from GPs did not need to be seen FF and 50% were dealt with without the neurologist meeting the patient. Carbon emission was halved. This system should be employed more, with FF examination reserved for those patients who need a neurological examination for diagnosis and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast provides the regional neuroendovascular service for Northern Ireland and was an enrolling centre for the ESCAPE endovascular stroke trial. Our aim was to assess outcomes for patients presenting with acute stroke following discontinuation of trial enrolment at our centre. Methods We collected data on all patients presenting with acute stoke between Nov-1st-2014 and Oct-31st-2015 who received endovascular treatment or received IV thrombolysis (IV-tPA) alone. ESCAPE eligibility of each patient was assessed. Primary outcome was modified Rankin Score (mRS) at 3 months. Results 129 patients presented with acute stoke symptoms during the time period; 56/129 (43.4%) patients in the intervention group and 73/129 (56.5%) patients in the control group. In the interventional group, 42/56 (75%) were considered ESCAPE eligible and 14/56 (25%) were considered ESCAPE ineligible. 30/42 (71.4%) ESCAPE eligible patients had a positive functional outcome at 3 months compared to 9/14 (64.2%) ESCAPE ineligible patients. In the control group, 37 (50.7%) had identifiable thrombotic occlusion and 13/37 (35.1%) were considered eligible for intervention. 4/13 (30.8%) achieved functional independence (mRS<3) at 3 months. There was a statistically significant difference in functional independence in those who underwent endovascular therapy compared to the control group (p= 0.04). Conclusion ESCAPE eligible patients in our centre had favourable outcome rates superior to the published trial data. ESCAPE ineligible patients tended to do slightly less well, but still better than the favourable outcome rates achieved with IVtPA alone. There is potentially a wide discordance between the threshold for futility and trial eligibility criteria when considering endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]