Neurological Sciences

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 555–564

The Lombardia Stroke Unit Registry: 1-year experience of a web-based hospital stroke registry

  • Giuseppe Micieli
  • Anna Cavallini
  • Silvana Quaglini
  • Giancarlo Fontana
  • Michela Duè
Original Article

Abstract

This paper presents methodological aspects of the Lombardia Stroke Registry. At the registry start-up, 36 recruiting centres were identified according to a regional survey. The registry recruits consecutive patients with acute stroke or transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs). A 3-month follow-up was planned to correlate acute care with outcomes. On 31st December 2007, data concerning 6,181 patients discharged alive were available. The registry aims at measuring performance parameters, identifying guidelines non-compliance and analysing care processes. In this first phase, 30% of the Lombardia acute stroke and 10% of TIA patients have been enrolled, thus the sample can be considered informative for the disease care in the region. The proportion of completed data items is very high with very small differences among items. The following critical points were highlighted: (1) lack of data input staff for 30% of centres, and (2) difficulty of obtaining the informed consent for post-discharge follow-up.

Keywords

Cerebrovascular diseases Stroke unit Process of care Registry 

References

  1. 1.
    Bonita R, Stewart AW, Beaglehole R (1990) International trends in stroke mortality: 1970–1985. Stroke 21:989–992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration (2001) Organised in-patient (Stroke Unit) care for stroke. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews CD 000197Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration (2007) Organised in-patient (Stroke Unit) care for stroke. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews CD 000197Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Govan L, Weir CJ, Langhorne P, For the Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration (2008) Organized inpatient (Stroke Unit) care for stroke. Stroke 39:2402–2403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Langhorne P, Pollock A, Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration (2002) What are the components of effective stroke unit care? Age Ageing 31:365–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT et al (2003) Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD000259Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Appelros P, Samuelsson M, Karlsson-Tivenius S et al (2007) A national stroke quality register: 12 years experience from a participating hospital. Eur J Neurol 14:890–894CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silver FL, Kapral MK, Lindsay MP et al (2006) International experience in stroke registries: lessons learned in establishing the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. Am J Prev Med 31(6 Suppl 2):S235–S237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arboix A, Cendrós V, Besa M et al (2008) Trends in risk factors, stroke subtypes and outcome. Nineteen-year data from the Sagrat Cor Hospital of Barcelona stroke registry. Cerebrovasc Dis 26:509–516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vemmos KN, Bots ML, Tsibouris PK et al (2000) Prognosis of stroke in the south of Greece: 1 year mortality, functional outcome and its determinants: the Arcadia Stroke Registry. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 69:595–600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindsay P, Bayley M, McDonald A et al (2008) Toward a more effective approach to stroke: Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for stroke care. CMAJ 178:1418–1425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bersano A, Candelise L, Sterzi R et al (2006) Stroke Unit care in Italy. Results from PROSIT (Project on Stroke Services in Italy). A nationwide study. Neurol Sci 27:332–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sacco S, Marini C, Oliveri L et al (2007) Contribution of hematocrit to early mortality after ischemic stroke. Eur Neurol 58:233–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silvestrelli G, Paciaroni M, Caso V et al (2006) Risk factors and stroke subtypes: results of five consecutive years of the Perugia Stroke Registry. Clin Exp Hypertens 28:279–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biasi GM, Deleo G, Froio A et al (2006) Rationale and design of a multidisciplinary national real-world registry on carotid stenting: the Italian Registry for Carotid Stenting (RISC). J Endovasc Ther 13:214–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lenti G, Agosti M, Massucci M et al (2008) Developing a minimum data set for stroke patients assessment: the “Protocollo di Minima per l’Ictus” (PMIC) as a starting point towards an Italian stroke registry. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 44:263–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cavallini A, Micieli G, SUN Lombardia Collaborators (2006) Lombardia Stroke Unit Network Project. Neurol Sci 27(Suppl 3):S268–S272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Candelise L, Gattinoni M, Bersano A et al (2007) Stroke-unit for acute stroke patients: an observational follow-up study. Lancet 369:299–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    SPREAD. Ictus cerebrale: Linee guida italiane di prevenzione e trattamento V edizione (2007) Pubblicazioni Catel—Hyperphar Group SpAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wattigney WA, Croft JB, Mensah GA et al (2003) Establishing data elements for the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry: Part 1: proceedings of an expert panel. Stroke 34:151–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tu JV, Willison DJ, Silver FL et al (2004) The impracticability of informed consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. N Engl J Med 350:1414–1421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Micieli G, Cavallini A, Quaglini S, Guideline Application for Decision Making in Stroke (GLADIS) Study Group (2002) Guideline compliance improves stroke outcome: a preliminary study in 4 districts in the Italian region of Lombardia. Stroke 33:1341–1347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Panzarasa S, Stefanelli M (2006) Workflow management systems for guideline implementation. Neurol Sci 27(Suppl 3):S245–S249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Panzarasa S, Quaglini S, Cavallini A, Marcheselli S, Stefanelli M, Micieli G (2007) Computerised guidelines implementation: obtaining feedback for revision of guidelines, clinical data model and data flow. In: Bellazzi R, Abu-Hanna A, Hunter J (eds) Proceedings, AIME 2007, LNAI 4594, pp 461–466Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Panzarasa S, Quaglini S, Micieli G, Marcheselli S, Pessina M, Pernice C, Cavallini A, Stefanelli M (2007) Improving compliance to guidelines through workflow technology: implementation and results in a Stroke Unit. In: Kuhn K et al (eds) MEDINFO 2007. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 834–839Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vos L, van Oostenbrugge RJ, Limburg M et al (2009) How to implement process-oriented care: a case study on the implementation of process-oriented in-hospital stroke care. Accred Qual Assur 14:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kwan J, Sandercock P (2003) In-hospital care pathways for stroke: a Cochrane systematic review. Stroke 34:587–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der Aalst WMP, van Dongen BF, Herbst J, Maruster L, Schimm G, Weijters AJMM (2003) Workflow mining: a survey of issues and approaches. Data Knowl Eng 47:237–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Dongen BF, Alves De Medeiros AK, Verbeek HMW (2005) The ProM framework: a new era in process mining tool support. In: Ciardo G, Darondeau P et al (eds) Applications and theory of Petri Nets. Springer, Berlin, pp 444–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mans R, Schonenberg H, Leonardi G et al (2008) Process mining techniques: an application to stroke care. Stud Health Technol Inform 136:573–578PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jerntorp P, Berglund G (1992) Stroke registry in Malmö. Stroke 23:357–361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kapral MK, Laupacis A, Phillips SJ et al (2004) Stroke care delivery in institutions participating in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. Stroke 35:1756–1762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reeves MJ, Arora S, Broderick JP et al (2005) Acute stroke care in the US: results from 4 pilot prototypes of the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry. Stroke 36:1232–1240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schwamm LH, Fonarow GC, Reeves MJ et al (2009) Get with the Guidelines-Stroke is associated with sustained improvement in care for patients hospitalized with acute stroke or transient ischemic attack. Circulation 119:107–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hills NK, Johnston SC (2006) Duration of hospital participation in a nationwide stroke registry is associated with improved quality of care. BMC Neurol 6:20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goldhill DR, Sumner A (1998) APACHE II, data accuracy and outcome prediction. Anaesthesia 53:937–943CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clive RE, Ocwieja KM, Kamell L et al (1995) A national quality improvement effort: cancer registry data. J Surg Oncol 58:155–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chen LM, Martin CM, Morrison TL et al (1999) Interobserver variability in data collection of the APACHE II score in teaching and community hospitals. Crit Care Med 27:1999–2004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schwamm L, Reeves MJ, Frankel M (2006) Designing a sustainable national registry for stroke quality improvement. Am J Prev Med 31(6 Suppl 2):S251–S257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe Micieli
    • 1
  • Anna Cavallini
    • 2
  • Silvana Quaglini
    • 3
  • Giancarlo Fontana
    • 4
  • Michela Duè
    • 2
  1. 1.UC Neurologia d’Urgenza e Pronto SoccorsoIRCCS Foundation “C. Mondino”PaviaItaly
  2. 2.UC Malattie Cerebrovascolari/Stroke UnitIRCCS Foundation “C. Mondino”PaviaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Computer Engineering and Systems ScienceUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  4. 4.Assessorato alla Sanità, Regione LombardiaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations