Effectiveness of a clinical pathway for acute stroke care in a district general hospital: An audit

Abstract

Background: Organised stroke care saves lives and reduces disability. A clinical pathway might be a form of organised stroke care, but the evidence for the effectiveness of this model of care is limited. Methods: This study was a retrospective audit study of consecutive stroke admissions in the setting of an acute general medical unit in a district general hospital. The case-notes of patients admitted with stroke for a 6-month period before and after introduction of the pathway, were reviewed to determine data on length of stay, outcome, functional status, (Barthel Index, BI and Modified Rankin Scale, MRS), Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project (OCSP) sub-type, use of investigations, specific management issues and secondary prevention strategies. Logistic regression was used to adjust for differences in case-mix. Results: N = 77 (prior to the pathway) and 76 (following the pathway). The median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 78 years (67.75-84.25), 88% were European NZ and 37% were male. The median (IQR) BI at admission for the pre-pathway group was less than the post-pathway group: 6 (0-13.5) vs. 10 (4-15.5), p = 0.018 but other baseline variables were statistically similar. There were no significant differences between any of the outcome or process of care variables, except that echocardiograms were done less frequently after the pathway was introduced. A good outcome (MRS<4) was obtained in 66.2% prior to the pathway and 67.1% after the pathway. In-hospital mortality was 20.8% and 23.1%. However, using logistic regression to adjust for the differences in admission BI, it appeared that admission after the pathway was introduced had a significant negative effect on the probability of good outcome (OR 0.29, 95%CI 0.09-0.99). Conclusion: A clinical pathway for acute stroke management appeared to have no benefit for the outcome or processes of care and may even have been associated with worse outcomes. These data support the conclusions of a recent Cochrane review. © 2006 Taylor et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.