Abstract
Importance Systemic biases and barriers may affect identification, emergency transportation, and care coordination for people with stroke. We assessed patient- and hospital-level factors for associations with pre-hospital and emergency department care processes. We compared trends for patients first presenting to an academic medical center versus community hospitals.
Objective Assess whether patient and hospital characteristics were associated with differences in emergency medical services utilization, stroke code activation, and time to treatment for patients first hospitalized with stroke at academic medical center versus community hospitals. We hypothesized that disparities exist by patient characteristics (e.g., race and ethnicity, primary language) within each clinical setting, and that differences exist across the clinical settings.
Design Retrospective cohort study using data from the electronic health record at an academic medical center (Tufts Medical Center).
Setting Tertiary care referral center.
Participants 542 patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized with stroke (96% with acute ischemic stroke) between 1/1/2018-12/31/2020, including patients who presented directly to the academic medical center and patients transferred from community hospitals.
Main Outcomes Emergency medical services use, stroke code activation, door-to-computed tomography time, and door-to-needle time.
Results Academic medical center non-Hispanic Asians (odds ratio (OR)=0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.13-0.47) and Hispanics (OR=0.19; 95% CI=0.05-0.72) and community hospital non-Hispanic Black/African-Americans (OR=0.17; 95% CI=0.05-0.62) were less likely to use emergency medical services compared to non-Hispanic whites. Patients with non-English primary language were less likely to use emergency medical services (OR=0.38; 95% CI=0.23-0.63) compared to English-speaking patients overall, in academic medical centers (OR=0.46; 95% CI=0.25-0.83) and community hospitals (OR=0.18; 95% CI=0.06-0.51). Community hospital Hispanics were less likely to have stroke code activation (OR=0.24; 95% CI=0.05-0.86) compared to non-Hispanic whites. Patients first presenting to a community hospital versus an academic medical center were less likely to have stroke code activation (OR=0.12; 95% CI=0.07-0.19), had shorter door-to-computed tomography time (31% shorter; 95% CI=15-43% shorter), and had longer door-to-needle time (29% longer; 95% CI=5-58% longer).
Conclusions Patient-level factors and hospital setting were associated with differences in acute care suggesting opportunities for community outreach on emergency medical service use, interventions to alleviate language barriers, and approaches to address systemic racism affecting stroke care.
Question Are there differences in acute stroke care between patients first hospitalized at academic medical centers versus community hospitals?
Findings In this retrospective cohort study (n=542), academic medical center patients identifying as non-Hispanic Asian or Hispanic, community hospital patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black/African-American, and patients with a non-English primary language were less likely to use emergency medical services. Community hospital patients identifying as Hispanic were less likely to have stroke code activation. Community hospital patients were less likely to have stroke code activation, had shorter door-to-computed tomography time, and had longer door-to-needle time.
Meaning Targeted intervention and outreach are needed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Committee of Medical Student Research at Tufts University School of Medicine via the Harold Williams, M.D. Summer Research Fellowship, which provides funding for medical students to conduct research during the summer between first and second year of medical school. Funding was also provided by the Tufts University Data Intensive Studies Center.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Tufts Medical Center gave ethical approval for this work (#12151).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
