Abstract TMP16: Impact of Door-to-Imaging and Imaging-to-Door Times on Door-in-Door-out Times in Interhospital Transfers of Patients With Stroke

Regina Royan,Brian Stamm,Mihai Giurcanu,Steven R Messe,Edward C Jauch,Shyam Prabhakaran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/str.55.suppl_1.tmp16

IF: 10.17

2024-02-01

Stroke

Abstract:Introduction: Urgent inter-hospital transfer ensures timely access to therapies for acute ischemic stroke. Door-in-door-out (DIDO) represents the total amount of time a patient spends in the transferring emergency department (ED) before transfer. DIDO time is an important quality metric for the care of acute stroke; however, little is known about the influence of process steps on DIDO times and which steps most often cause delays. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines®-Stroke registry with ischemic stroke presenting January 2019 to December 2021 transferred from the ED at the presenting hospital to another acute care hospital for evaluation of thrombolytics, endovascular therapy or post-thrombolytic care. The primary independent variables were door-to-imaging and imaging-to-door times, and the primary outcome was DIDO time. Multivariate GEE regression models were performed to assess the comparative contributions of interval process times to variation in DIDO time, controlling for patient and hospital-level characteristics. Results: Among 24,662 patients (50.5% male, mean age 68.3 years, 73.2% White), mean DIDO time was 171.4 min (SD: 149.5), mean door-to-imaging time was 18.3 min (SD: 34.1) and mean imaging-to-door time was 153.1 min (SD: 141.5). A 1 min increase in door-to-imaging time was associated with a 1.33 min increase in the mean DIDO time, while a 1 min increase in imaging-to-door time was associated with a 1.02 min increase in mean DIDO time. The baseline model (without door-to-imaging or imaging-to-door included) had an R2 of 0.03. With door-to-imaging included in the GEE model, R2 was 0.13; whereas the model with imaging-to-door included had an R2 of 0.95. Conclusion: Imaging-to-door time accounts for a greater proportion of the variance in DIDO times than door-to-imaging time. Though the opportunity for improvement in DIDO is greater through reduction of imaging-to-door time, door-to-imaging time has greater per-minute effect on DIDO. While existing guidelines and care resources heavily focus on reducing door-to-imaging times, further attention is warranted to reduce imaging-to-door times in the management of acute ischemic stroke.

peripheral vascular disease,clinical neurology