Telemedicine networks for acute stroke: an analysis of global coverage, gaps and opportunities.

Abstract

Background: Despite the proven efficacy of telestroke in improving clinical outcomes by providing access to specialized expertise and allowing rapid expert hyperacute stroke management and decision-making, detailed operational evidence is scarce, especially for less developed or lower - income regions.

Aim: We aimed to map the global telestroke landscape and characterize existing networks.

Methods: We employed a four-tiered approach to comprehensively identify telestroke networks, primarily involving engagement with national stroke experts, stroke societies, and international stroke authorities. A carefully designed questionnaire was then distributed to the leaders of all identified networks to assess these networks' structures, processes, and outcomes.

Results: We identified 254 telestroke networks distributed across 67 countries. High-income countries (HICs) concentrated 175 (69%) of the networks. No evidence of telestroke services was found in 58 (30%) countries. From the identified networks, 88 (34%) completed the survey, being 61 (71%) located in HICs. Network set-up was highly heterogenous, ranging from 17 (22%) networks with more than twenty affiliated hospitals, providing thousands of annual consultations using purpose-built highly specialized technology, to 11 (13%) networks with fewer than 120 consultations annually using generic videoconferencing equipment. Real-time video and image transfer was employed in 64 (75%) networks, while 62 (74%) conducting quality monitoring. Most networks established in the last three years were located in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Conclusions: This comprehensive global survey of telestroke networks found significant variation in network coverage, set-up, and technology use. Most services are in HICs, and few services are in LMICs, although an emerging trend of new networks in these regions marks a pivotal moment in global telestroke care. The wide variation in quality monitoring practices across networks, with many failing to report key performance metrics, underscores the urgent need for standardized, resource-appropriate quality assurance measures that can be adapted to diverse settings.