Search

Background and Purpose: Differences in stroke care and outcomes reported in Europe may reflect different degrees of implementation of evidence-based interventions. We evaluated strategies for implementing research evidence into stroke care in 10 European countries., Methods: A questionnaire was developed and administered through face-to-face interviews with key informants. Implementation strategies were investigated considering 3 levels (macro, meso, and micro, eg, policy, organization, patients/professionals) identified by the framing analysis, and different settings (primary, hospital, and specialist) of stroke care. Similarities and differences among countries were evaluated using the categorical principal components analysis., Results: Implementation methods reported by ≥7 countries included nonmandatory policies, public financial incentives, continuing professional education, distribution of educational material, educational meetings and campaigns, guidelines, opinion leaders', and stroke patients associations' activities. Audits were present in 6 countries at national level; national and regional regulations in 4 countries. Private financial incentives, reminders, and educational outreach visits were reported only in 2 countries. At national level, the first principal component of categorical principal components analysis separated England, France, Scotland, and Sweden, all with positive object scores, from the other countries. Belgium and Lithuania obtained the lowest scores. At regional level, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden had positive scores in the first principal component, whereas Belgium, Lithuania, Poland, and Scotland showed negative scores. Spain was in an intermediate position., Conclusions: We developed a novel method to assess different domains of implementation in stroke care. Clear variations were observed among European countries. The new tool may be used elsewhere for future contributions., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objective: There were two main objectives: to describe and compare clinical outcomes and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) collected using standardised procedures across the European Registers of Stroke (EROS) at 3 and 12 months after stroke; and to examine the relationship between patients' Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) at 3 months after stroke and survival up to 1 year across the 5 populations., Design: Analysis of data from population-based stroke registers., Setting: European populations in Dijon (France); Kaunas (Lithuania); London (UK); Warsaw (Poland) and Sesto Fiorentino (Italy)., Participants: Patients with ischaemic or intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) stroke, registered between 2004 and 2006., Outcome Measures: (1) HRQoL, assessed by the physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) of the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), mapped into the EQ-5D to estimate responses on 5 dimensions (mobility, activity, pain, anxiety and depression, and self-care) and utility scores. (2) Mortality within 3 months and within 1 year of stroke., Results: Of 1848 patients, 325 were lost to follow-up and 500 died within a year of stroke. Significant differences in mortality, HRQoL and utility scores were found, and remained after adjustments. Kaunas had an increased risk of death; OR 2.34, 95% CI (1.32 to 4.14) at 3 months after stroke in Kaunas, compared with London. Sesto Fiorentino had the highest adjusted PCS: 43.54 (SD=0.96), and Dijon had the lowest adjusted, Mcs: 38.67 (SD=0.67). There are strong associations between levels of the EQ-5D at 3 months and survival within the year. The trend across levels suggests a dose-response relationship., Conclusions: The study demonstrated significant variations in survival, HRQoL and utilities across populations that could not be explained by stroke severity and sociodemographic factors. Strong associations between HRQoL at 3 months and survival to 1 year after stroke were identified., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background and Purpose: There are significant differences in the provision of care and outcome after stroke across countries. The European Registers of Stroke study aimed to develop, test, and refine a tool to assess quality of care., Methods: We used a systematic review and grading of evidence for stroke care across the clinical pathway and developed and field-tested a quality tool that was delivered by post and later by site visit at 7 centers. Items were refined by using an algorithm that took into account the level of evidence, measurement properties, and consensus of opinion obtained using, the Delphi techniques., Results: The tool included 251 items across 11 domains, of which 214 items could be categorized by any level of evidence. Overall agreement between postal and site visit modes of delivery was acceptable (κ=0.77), with most items having a κ>0.5. The refinement process resulted in 2 practical versions of the tool (93 items and 22 items). Positive responses to items in the tool indicated implementation of evidence-based stroke care. In field testing, the proportion of positive responses to evidence-based items ranged from 43% to 79% across populations. Proportions of different types of evidence being implemented were similar: high quality 62%, limited quality 72%, and expert opinion 54% across the populations. More than half (4 of 7) of the centers provided stroke unit care and thrombolysis, but availability and access to inpatient rehabilitation varied significantly, with poor access to community follow-up for rehabilitation and medical management., Conclusions: The European Registers of Stroke Quality Assessment Tool has potential to be used as a framework to compare services and promote increased implementation of evidence-based care.

Background: The European Registers Of Stroke (EROS) project aimed to assess outcomes of stroke care across Europe, relating these to both case mix information from disease-specific population registers and the quality of stroke care provided at each centre. This included comparing information on quality of care with direct observation of the stroke care process in 4 centres., Methods: Direct non-participant observational methods were used on a purposive sample of first-stroke patients admitted within the past 14 days to an acute-stroke unit or ward that admits stroke patients in 4 urban hospital sites in London, UK, Dijon, France, Kaunas, Lithuania, and St. Petersburg, Russia. We recorded patient characteristics with levels of contact with multi-disciplinary team (MDT) members and contact with families and mobilization to build a collection of 'snapshots' of stroke care throughout the patients' day. One independent observer undertook all observations over 1 day., Results: We observed differences between centres in the proportion of observations where patients were alone (lowest proportion in London, highest proportion in St. Petersburg) (p > 0.001), where patients had contact with MDT members (p > 0.001) and family, and where patients were out of bed/mobile (p > 0.001) (both with highest proportion in London, lowest proportion in St. Petersburg)., Conclusions: Higher levels of contact with the MDT, family contact and mobilization were observed in the Western European centres than the Eastern European and Russian centres. Differences in case mix may explain some, but not all, of these differences. Direct observation has some limitations; however, it could be developed in future studies to help identify other key aspects of effective stroke care., (2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background and Purpose: The "2 simple questions" were designed as an efficient way of measuring outcome after stroke. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of this tool, adapted for use in 8 European centers, and used it to compare outcomes across centers., Methods: Data were taken from the Biomed II prospective study of stroke care and outcomes. Three-month poststroke data from 8 European centers were analyzed. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed by comparing responses to the 2 simple questions with Barthel Index and modified Rankin scale scores. Adjusting for case mix, logistic regression was used to compare patients in each center with "good" outcome (not dependent and fully recovered) at 3 months., Results: Data for 793 patients were analyzed. For the total sample, the dependency question had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 77%; the recovery question had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 90%. Dependency data from Riga had much lower sensitivity. There was variation in good outcome between centers (P:=0.0015). Compared with the reference center (Kaunas), patients in Dijon, Florence, and Menorca were more likely to have good outcome, after adjusting for case mix., Conclusions: Dependency and recovery questions showed generally high sensitivity and specificity. There were significant differences across centers in outcome, but reasons for these are unclear. Such differences raise particular questions about how patients interpreted and answered the simple questions and the extent to which expectations of recovery and perceived needs for assistance vary cross-culturally.