{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":{"citationCount":0,"reanalysisCount":0,"viewCount":44,"searchCount":0},"additional":{"submitter":["Dwyer M"],"funding":["Department of Health, Queensland","Monash University","Heart Foundation","National Stroke Foundation","Boehringer Ingelheim","Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals","National Health and Medical Research Council","Allergan"],"pagination":["e040418"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8021749"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["11(4)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the processes and outcomes of care in patients who had a stroke treated in urban versus rural hospitals in Australia.<h4>Design</h4>Observational study using data from a multicentre national registry.<h4>Setting</h4>Data from 50 acute care hospitals in Australia (25 urban, 25 rural) which participated in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry during the period 2010-2015.<h4>Participants</h4>Patients were divided into two groups (urban, rural) according to the Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Area classification. Data pertaining to 28 115 patients who had a stroke were analysed, of whom 8159 (29%) were admitted to hospitals located within rural areas.<h4>Primary and secondary outcome measures</h4>Regional differences in processes of care (admission to a stroke unit, thrombolysis for ischaemic stroke, discharge on antihypertensive medication and provision of a care plan), and survival analyses up to 180 days and health-related quality of life at 90-180 days.<h4>Results</h4>Compared with those admitted to urban hospitals, patients in rural hospitals less often received thrombolysis (urban 12.7% vs rural 7.5%, p<0.001) or received treatment in stroke units (urban 82.2% vs rural 76.5%, p<0.001), and fewer were discharged with a care plan (urban 61.3% vs rural 44.7%, p<0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of survival or overall self-reported quality of life.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Rural access to recommended components of acute stroke care was comparatively poorer; however, this did not appear to impact health outcomes at approximately 6 months."],"journal":["BMJ open"],"pubmed_title":["Regional differences in the care and outcomes of acute stroke patients in Australia: an observational study using evidence from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR)."],"pmcid":["PMC8021749"],"funding_grant_id":["Not applicable","102055","1034415"],"pubmed_authors":["Ford K","Lannin NA","Phan H","AuSCR Consortium","Kim J","Francis K","White R","Arthurson L","Dwyer M","Castley H","Wong L","Peterson GM","Gall S","Ryan F","Cadilhac DA"],"view_count":["44"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Regional differences in the care and outcomes of acute stroke patients in Australia: an observational study using evidence from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR).","description":"<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the processes and outcomes of care in patients who had a stroke treated in urban versus rural hospitals in Australia.<h4>Design</h4>Observational study using data from a multicentre national registry.<h4>Setting</h4>Data from 50 acute care hospitals in Australia (25 urban, 25 rural) which participated in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry during the period 2010-2015.<h4>Participants</h4>Patients were divided into two groups (urban, rural) according to the Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Area classification. Data pertaining to 28 115 patients who had a stroke were analysed, of whom 8159 (29%) were admitted to hospitals located within rural areas.<h4>Primary and secondary outcome measures</h4>Regional differences in processes of care (admission to a stroke unit, thrombolysis for ischaemic stroke, discharge on antihypertensive medication and provision of a care plan), and survival analyses up to 180 days and health-related quality of life at 90-180 days.<h4>Results</h4>Compared with those admitted to urban hospitals, patients in rural hospitals less often received thrombolysis (urban 12.7% vs rural 7.5%, p<0.001) or received treatment in stroke units (urban 82.2% vs rural 76.5%, p<0.001), and fewer were discharged with a care plan (urban 61.3% vs rural 44.7%, p<0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of survival or overall self-reported quality of life.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Rural access to recommended components of acute stroke care was comparatively poorer; however, this did not appear to impact health outcomes at approximately 6 months.","dates":{"release":"2021-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2021 Apr","modification":"2024-02-15T21:20:14.117Z","creation":"2022-02-09T15:04:14.606Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC8021749","cross_references":{"pubmed":["33795291"],"doi":["10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040418"]}}