Although prehospital stroke management is challenging, it is a crucial part of the acute stroke chain to enable equal access to highly specialised stroke care. It involves a critical understanding of players usually not specialized in acute stroke treatments. There is contradictory information about gender inequity in prehospital stroke detection, dispatch, and delivery to hospital stroke centers. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the knowledge of gender differences in the first three stages of acute stroke management. Information on the detection of acute stroke symptoms by patients, their relatives, and bystanders is discussed. Women seem to have a better overall knowledge about stroke, although general understanding needs to be improved. However, older age and different social situations of women could be identified as reasons for reduced and delayed help-seeking. Dispatch and delivery lie within the responsibility of the emergency medical service. Differences in clinical presentation with symptoms mainly affecting general conditions could be identified as a crucial challenge leading to gender inequity in these stages. Improvement of stroke education has to be applied to tackle this inequal management. However, specifically designed projects and analyses are needed to understand more details of sex differences in prehospital stroke management, which is a necessary first step for the potential development of substantially improving strategies.

BACKGROUND Despite proven benefits, the use of single‐purpose mobile stroke units (MSUs) has raised concerns about their effective and cost‐efficient integration into clinical practice, especially when considered for operation in nonurban areas. The MSU concept may benefit from opening the indication spectrum to include frequent stroke mimics and additional emergencies. METHODS The current observational study evaluated benefits for the treatment and triage decision‐making of use of an MSU with extended capabilities (Hybrid‐MSU), also including radiography, ultrasonography, extended point‐of‐care laboratory, ECG, electroencephalography, and advanced medications. Apart from patients with a dispatch code for “stroke”, the ambulance was also dispatched to those with codes for “seizures”, “falls with head trauma”, “headache”, “unconsciousness”, “infection and pandemic”, “chest pain”, and “breathing problems”. RESULTS For 250 patients treated by the Hybrid‐MSU, but not for 250 conventionally treated patients, the prehospital diagnostic workup allowed, apart from treatment with stroke thrombolytics (n=15), prehospital administration of specific anticonvulsants (n=15), antibiotics (n=5), early secondary stroke prophylaxis with aspirin (n=49), and the Sepsis Six bundle (n=2). Prehospital diagnosis avoided 215 (86.0%) admissions to the emergency department, either by management at home (n=116, 46.4%) or by directly transferring patients to the required specialized wards (n=99, 39.6%). CONCLUSION The current study demonstrates the feasibility of the use of a Hybrid‐MSU and indicates its potential benefits for prehospital treatment and triage decision‐making. Opening the indication spectrum, together with an act‐alone ability, could be a key in the future integration of MSUs into routine health care.