Context Although stroke centers are widely accepted and supported, little is known about their impact on patient outcomes. Objective To examine the association between admission to stroke centers for an acute ischemic stroke and mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants Observational study using data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. We compared mortality for patients admitted with acute ischemic stroke (n=30,947) between 2005 and 2006 at designated stroke centers and non-designated hospitals using differential distance to hospitals as an instrumental variable to adjust for potential pre-hospital selection bias. Patients were followed for mortality for 1 year after the index hospitalization through 2007. To assess whether our findings were specific to stroke, we also compared mortality for patients admitted with gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n=39,409) or acute myocardial infarction (n=40,024) at designated stroke centers and non-designated hospitals. Main Outcome Measure Thirty-day all-cause mortality. Results Among 30,947 patients with acute ischemic stroke, 15,297 (49.4%) were admitted to designated stroke centers. Using the instrumental variable analysis, admission to designated stroke centers was associated with greater use of thrombolytic therapy (4.8% vs. 1.7%; adjusted difference 2.2%, 95% CI, 1.6% to 2.8%; P<0.001) and lower 30-day all-cause mortality (10.1% vs. 12.5%; adjusted mortality difference: −2.5%, 95% CI, −3.6% to −1.4%; P<0.001). Differences in mortality also were observed at all time points, including at 1-day, 7-day, and 1-year follow-up. Moreover, the outcome differences were specific to stroke, as stroke centers and non-stroke centers had similar 30-day all-cause mortality rates among those with acute myocardial infarction (adjusted mortality difference: +0.3%, 95% CI, −0.5% to 1.0%; P=0.50) and/or gastrointestinal hemorrhage (adjusted mortality difference: +0.1%, 95% CI, −0.9% to 1.1%; P=0.83). Conclusions Admission to a designated stroke center for acute ischemic stroke was associated with more frequent use of thrombolytic therapy and lower mortality.

BACKGROUND: Extension for Community Health care Outcomes (ECHO) and related models of medical teleeducation are rapidly expanding; however, their effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review examines the effectiveness of ECHO and ECHO-like medical teleeducation models of healthcare delivery in terms of improved provider-and patient-related outcomes. METHODS: We searched English-language studies in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from 1 January 2007 to 1 December 2018 as well as bibliography review. Two reviewers independently screened citations for peer-reviewed publications reporting provider-and/ or patient-related outcomes of technology-enabled collaborative learning models that satisfied six criteria of the ECHO framework. Reviewers then independently abstracted data, assessed study quality, and rated strength of evidence (SOE) based on Cochrane GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Data from 52 peer-reviewed articles were included. Forty-three reported provider-related outcomes; 15 reported patient-related outcomes. Studies on provider-related outcomes suggested favorable results across three domains: satisfaction, increased knowledge, and increased clinical confidence. However, SOE was low, relying primarily on self-reports and surveys with low response rates. One randomized trial has been conducted. For patient-related outcomes, 11 of 15 studies incorporated a comparison group; none involved randomization. Four studies reported care outcomes, while 11 reported changes in care processes. Evidence suggested effectiveness at improving outcomes for patients with hepatitis C, chronic pain, dementia, and type 2 diabetes. Evidence is generally low-quality, retrospective, non-experimental, and subject to social desirability bias and low survey response rates. DISCUSSION: The number of studies examining ECHO and ECHO-like models of medical tele-education has been modest compared with the scope and scale of implementation throughout the USA and internationally. Given the potential of ECHO to broaden access to healthcare in rural, remote, and underserved communities, more studies are needed to evaluate effectiveness. This need for evidence follows similar patterns to other service delivery models in the literature.

Context-Although stroke centers are widely accepted and supported, little is known about their impact on patient outcomes.Objective-To examine the association between admission to stroke centers for an acute ischemic stroke and mortality.Design, Setting, and Participants-Observational study using data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. We compared mortality for patients admitted with acute ischemic stroke (n=30,947) between 2005 and 2006 at designated stroke centers and non-designated hospitals using differential distance to hospitals as an instrumental variable to adjust for potential pre-hospital selection bias. Patients were followed for mortality for 1 year after the index hospitalization through 2007. To assess whether our findings were specific to stroke, we also compared mortality for patients admitted with gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n=39,409) or acute myocardial infarction (n=40,024) at designated stroke centers and nondesignated hospitals.Main Outcome Measure-Thirty-day all-cause mortality.Correspondence: Ying Xian, MD, PhD; Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC 27705; Tel: (585) Fax: (919) 668-7058; ying.xian@duke.edu. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Dr Xian had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Previous Presentation:This study was presented in part at the 2010 American Heart Association Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Conference, Washington, DC, May 20, 2010 Role of the Sponsor: The funding organization had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation of the manuscript. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the AHA and AHRQ.Disclaimer: This study used a linked SPARCS-SSADMF database. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the sole responsibility of the authors. Results-Among 30,947 patients with acute ischemic stroke, 15,297 (49.4%) were admitted to designated stroke centers. Using the instrumental variable analysis, admission to designated stroke centers was associated with greater use of thrombolytic therapy (4.8% vs. 1.7%; adjusted difference 2.2%, 95% CI, 1.6% to 2.8%; P<0.001) and lower 30-day all-cause mortality (10.1% vs. 12.5%; adjusted mortality difference: −2.5%, 95% CI, −3.6% to −1.4%; P<0.001). Differences in mortality also were observed at all time points, including at 1-day, 7-day, and 1-year follow-up. Moreover, the outcome differences were specific to stroke, as stroke centers and non-stroke centers had similar 30-day all-cause mortality rates among those with acute myocardial infarction (adjusted mortality difference: +0.3%, 95% CI, −0.5% to 1.0%; P=0.50) and/or gastrointestinal hemorrhage (adjusted mortality difference: +0.1%, 95% CI, −0.9% to 1.1%; P=0.83). NIH Public AccessConclusions-Admission to a designated stroke center for acute isc...

The hugely elevated mortality observed here underscores that young people experiencing psychosis warrant intensive clinical attention-yet we found low rates of pharmacotherapy and limited use of psychosocial treatment. These patterns reinforce the importance of providing coordinated, proactive treatment for young people with psychosis in US community settings.

BACKGROUND: In 2003, Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) began using technology-enabled collaborative models of care to help general practitioners in rural settings manage hepatitis C. Today, ECHO and ECHO-like models (EELM) have been applied to a variety of settings and health conditions, but the evidence base underlying EELM is thin, despite widespread enthusiasm for the model. METHODS: In April 2018, a technical expert panel (TEP) meeting was convened to assess the current evidence base for EELM and identify ways to strengthen it. RESULTS: TEP members identified four strategies for future implementors and evaluators of EELM to address key challenges to conducting rigorous evaluations: (1) develop a clear understanding of EELM and what they are intended to accomplish; (2) emphasize rigorous reporting of EELM program characteristics; (3) use a wider variety of study designs to fill key knowledge gaps about EELM; (4) address structural barriers through capacity building and stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Building a strong evidence base will help leverage the innovative aspects of EELM by better understanding how, why, and in what contexts EELM improve care access, quality, and delivery, while also improving provider satisfaction and capacity.