Patient Pathways During Acute in-Hospital Stroke Treatment: A Qualitative Multi-Method Study

Challenges and needs in cerebrovascular disease pathway: A qualitative descriptive study from the patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives

AIM(S)

To understand patients' and healthcare professionals' experiences to improve care in and across different domains of the cerebrovascular disease pathway.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive study.

METHODS

Semi-structured in-person interviews were conducted among 22 patients diagnosed with acute cerebrovascular disease and 26 healthcare professionals taking care of them in a single tertiary-level hospital from August 2021 to March 2022. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive content analysis. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research was used to ensure reliable reporting.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 generic and 79 sub-categories describing perceived challenges with 17 generic and 62 sub-categories describing perceived needs were identified related to primary prevention, organization of stroke services, management of acute stroke, secondary prevention, rehabilitation, evaluation of stroke outcome and quality assessment, and life after stroke.

CONCLUSION

Several challenges and needs were identified in and across the different domains of the cerebrovascular disease pathway. There is a requirement for adequate resources, early initiation of treatment, early diagnostics and recanalization, dedicated rehabilitation services, long-term counselling and support, and impact evaluation of services to improve cerebrovascular disease care. Future research on caregivers', and clinical leadership experiences in and across the cerebrovascular disease pathway is needed to explore the provision of services.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

The results of this study can be applied by organizations, managers and research for developing and improving services in the cerebrovascular disease pathway.

IMPACT

This study identified several patient-related, organizational and logistical needs and challenges, with suggestions for required actions, that can benefit the provision of effective, high-quality cerebrovascular disease care.

REPORTING METHOD

We have adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines with the COREQ reporting method.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public involvement.

[Comparison of acute stroke care pathways-A qualitative multicenter study in three referring hospitals of a stroke network]

BACKGROUND

In stroke networks, hospitals that do not provide thrombectomy (referring hospitals) refer patients to specialized hospitals (receiving hospitals) for this specific intervention. In order to improve the access and management of thrombectomy, the focus of research needs to be not only on the receiving hospitals but also on the prior stroke care pathways in referring hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the stroke care pathways in different referring hospitals as well as the advantages and disadvantages associated with these pathways.

METHODS

A qualitative multicenter study was carried out in three referring hospitals of a stroke network. Stroke care was assessed and analyzed by using non-participant observations and 15 semi-structured interviews with employees in various health professions.

RESULTS

The following aspects were reported as advantageous within the stroke care pathways: (1) a structured and personal prenotification of the patient by the emergency medical service (EMS) members; (2) a more efficiently organized teleneurology workflow; (3) the provision of the secondary referral to thrombectomy by the same EMS members of the primary referral and (4) the integration of external neurologists into in-house structures.

CONCLUSION

The study provides insights into different stroke care pathways of three different referring hospitals of a stroke network. The results can be used to derive potentials for improvement of other referring hospitals; however, this study is too small to provide reliable information about their potential effectiveness. Future studies should investigate whether implementation of these recommendations actually leads to improvements and under which conditions they are successful. To ensure patient-centeredness, the perspectives of patients and relatives should also be included.