Preferences, Barriers and Facilitators for Establishing Comprehensive Stroke Units

1088 Words Jan 27th, 2018 4 Pages
This article is well written with good general flow of thought and easy for the reader to follow. Survey methodology is employed to capture data for quantitative analysis.1

The question asked pertains to a “comprehensive stroke unit (CSU)” model of care. It stems from 2 Cochrane database reviews (02, 07) by the Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration (SUTC) that showed survival and dependency benefits of “organized inpatient (stroke unit) care”.2, 3 These reviews however did not differentiate between models of care: 1) acute, 2) rehabilitation-based, or 3) CSU, i.e., both acute care and rehabilitation in the one ward. The effectiveness of organized stroke unit care has been further corroborated in the literature4-9, and re-affirmed by the SUTC in the updated 2013 Cochrane database review.10

The authors provide clear definitions of CSU and traditional stroke units (TSU), including acute (SU-A) versus rehabilitation-based care (SU-R). Importantly, the authors use the SUTC definition of CSU in this paper, as there is also emerging literature about comprehensive stroke centres which instead refer to a hyper-acute model of care involving facilities for acute intravenous or intra-arterial treatments, intensive monitoring, advanced imaging and neurosurgery.11

The authors purport that there are…
Open Document