Abstract
Background
Previous audits of stroke care in 2002 and 2005 in our institution recommended organised and specialised care of stroke patients. A stroke unit was therefore established in June 2008.
Aim
This audit assessed the impact of the establishment of an acute stroke unit on the care of stroke patients.
Method
A review of consecutive patients admitted and diagnosed with acute stroke between June 2008 and December 2008 was carried out. Comparison was made with 55 consecutive patients surveyed in 2005.
Results
Marked improvements in the management of acute stroke patients were noted, particularly time to computerised tomography of brain, aspirin administration and multidisciplinary involvement. Significantly, the average length of hospital stay was reduced by a mean of 10 days from 29.3 ± 28 in 2005 to 19.6 ± 20 following the establishment of a stroke unit (p = 0.018).
Conclusions
The stroke unit has greatly improved the care of acute stroke patients. Further areas for improvement are highlighted.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration (2007) Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD000197
Tan KM, Austin B, Shaughnessy M et al (2007) An Audit of the impact of implementation of a stroke care pathway in an acute teaching hospital. Ir J Med Sci 176(2):75–79
INASC (Irish National Audit of Stroke Care) (2006) http://www.irishheart.ie
Royal College of Physicians (2005) National Sentinel Stroke Audit Report 2004. Prepared on behalf of the Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. RCP, London
Nor AM, Davis J, Sen B et al (2005) The Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room (ROSIER) scale: development and validation of a stroke recognition instrument. Lancet Neurol 4(11):727–734
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lannon, R., Smyth, A. & Mulkerrin, E.C. An audit of the impact of a stroke unit in an acute teaching hospital. Ir J Med Sci 180, 37–40 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-010-0610-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-010-0610-3