Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Telemedicine Physician Assessments on a Mobile Stroke Unit: Protocol for a Prospective Open-Label Blinded End-Point Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of the American Heart Association Pub Date : 2024-11-05 Epub Date: 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1161/JAHA.124.036856
Vignan Yogendrakumar, Anna H Balabanski, Hannah Johns, Leonid Churilov, Nicola K Parsons, James Beharry, Louise Weir, Nawaf Yassi, Henry Zhao, Alex Warwick, Skye Coote, Francesca Langenberg, Leigh Branagan, Wasseem Siddiqi, Andrew Bivard, Bruce C V Campbell, Geoffrey A Donnan, Stephen M Davis
{"title":"Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Telemedicine Physician Assessments on a Mobile Stroke Unit: Protocol for a Prospective Open-Label Blinded End-Point Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Vignan Yogendrakumar, Anna H Balabanski, Hannah Johns, Leonid Churilov, Nicola K Parsons, James Beharry, Louise Weir, Nawaf Yassi, Henry Zhao, Alex Warwick, Skye Coote, Francesca Langenberg, Leigh Branagan, Wasseem Siddiqi, Andrew Bivard, Bruce C V Campbell, Geoffrey A Donnan, Stephen M Davis","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.124.036856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mobile stroke units have been shown to deliver faster patient care and improve clinical outcomes. However, costs associated with staffing limit their use to densely populated cities. Using the Melbourne mobile stroke unit, we aim to evaluate the safety, timeliness, and resource efficiency of a telemedicine model, where the neurologist assesses a patient remotely, via telemedicine, compared with an onboard neurologist model. We hypothesize that, without compromising patient safety, the telemedicine model will provide timely care and superior resource efficiency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a prospective, randomized, blinded end-point controlled design, 270 participants consecutively assessed on the Melbourne mobile stroke unit over ≈12 months will be assigned into 2 arms: (1) telemedicine neurologist assessment (intervention) versus (2) onboard assessment (comparator). Enrollment is based on prospectively designated randomized days of neurologist review onboard versus telemedicine. The primary outcome will be the odds that a randomly selected participant in the telemedicine arm will have a better outcome than a randomly selected participant in the onboard arm, measured using a desirability-of-outcome ranking, an outcome measure that includes, in order of importance: (1) safety, (2) scene-to-treatment-decision time metrics, and (3) resource usage. All participants within each arm will be compared with those in the other, resulting in a \"win/tie/loss\" distribution for telemedicine compared with the onboard model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study will establish whether use of a telemedicine neurologist delivers superior resource efficiency without compromising patient care. This would enable the broader use of mobile stroke units, particularly relevant to regions with limited access to neurologists, thus improving equity in access to time-critical, lifesaving stroke care.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT05991310.</p>","PeriodicalId":54370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":" ","pages":"e036856"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.036856","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mobile stroke units have been shown to deliver faster patient care and improve clinical outcomes. However, costs associated with staffing limit their use to densely populated cities. Using the Melbourne mobile stroke unit, we aim to evaluate the safety, timeliness, and resource efficiency of a telemedicine model, where the neurologist assesses a patient remotely, via telemedicine, compared with an onboard neurologist model. We hypothesize that, without compromising patient safety, the telemedicine model will provide timely care and superior resource efficiency.

Methods: Using a prospective, randomized, blinded end-point controlled design, 270 participants consecutively assessed on the Melbourne mobile stroke unit over ≈12 months will be assigned into 2 arms: (1) telemedicine neurologist assessment (intervention) versus (2) onboard assessment (comparator). Enrollment is based on prospectively designated randomized days of neurologist review onboard versus telemedicine. The primary outcome will be the odds that a randomly selected participant in the telemedicine arm will have a better outcome than a randomly selected participant in the onboard arm, measured using a desirability-of-outcome ranking, an outcome measure that includes, in order of importance: (1) safety, (2) scene-to-treatment-decision time metrics, and (3) resource usage. All participants within each arm will be compared with those in the other, resulting in a "win/tie/loss" distribution for telemedicine compared with the onboard model.

Conclusions: The study will establish whether use of a telemedicine neurologist delivers superior resource efficiency without compromising patient care. This would enable the broader use of mobile stroke units, particularly relevant to regions with limited access to neurologists, thus improving equity in access to time-critical, lifesaving stroke care.

Registration: URL: clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT05991310.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估移动卒中单元远程医疗医生评估的安全性和有效性:前瞻性开放标签盲法终点随机对照试验方案》。
背景:移动卒中单元已被证明能更快地为患者提供治疗并改善临床效果。然而,与人员配备相关的成本限制了其在人口稠密城市的使用。通过使用墨尔本移动卒中单元,我们旨在评估远程医疗模式的安全性、及时性和资源效率,在这种模式下,神经科医生通过远程医疗对患者进行远程评估,与随车神经科医生模式进行比较。我们假设,在不影响患者安全的情况下,远程医疗模式将提供及时的医疗服务和更高的资源效率:方法:采用前瞻性、随机、盲法终点对照设计,将在墨尔本移动卒中单元连续接受评估超过 ≈12 个月的 270 名参与者分配到两组:(1) 远程医疗神经学家评估(干预)与 (2) 机载评估(比较)。根据前瞻性指定的神经科医生机上评估与远程医疗评估的随机天数进行入组。主要结果是随机抽取的远程医疗组参与者比随机抽取的机载组参与者获得更好结果的几率,采用结果可取性排序进行测量,结果测量按重要性排序包括:(1) 安全性,(2) 从现场到治疗决定的时间指标,以及 (3) 资源使用情况。每组的所有参与者都将与另一组的参与者进行比较,从而得出远程医疗与机载模式相比的 "胜/平/负 "分布:这项研究将确定使用远程医疗神经科医生是否能在不影响患者护理的情况下提高资源利用效率。这将使移动卒中单元得到更广泛的使用,尤其是在神经科医生有限的地区,从而改善时间紧迫、挽救生命的卒中护理的公平性:URL: clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier:NCT05991310。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the American Heart Association
Journal of the American Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
1749
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: As an Open Access journal, JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association is rapidly and freely available, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice. JAHA is an authoritative, peer-reviewed Open Access journal focusing on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. JAHA provides a global forum for basic and clinical research and timely reviews on cardiovascular disease and stroke. As an Open Access journal, its content is free on publication to read, download, and share, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice.
期刊最新文献
P-Wave Duration Is Associated With Aging Patterns in Structural Brain Networks. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Use and Outcomes With WATCHMAN FLX: A SURPASS Analysis of the NCDR Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry. Smoking or Vaping Cannabis and Cardiovascular Function: Is Δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol the Main Culprit? Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and the Pathogenesis of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review on the Missing Link in a Complex Pathway. Hereditary Transthyretin Amyloidosis in Patients Referred to a Genetic Testing Program.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1