Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 5;13(21):e036856.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.036856. Epub 2024 Oct 18.

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

Vignan Yogendrakumar  1   2 , Anna H Balabanski  1   3 , Hannah Johns  4 , Leonid Churilov  4 , Nicola K Parsons  1 , James Beharry  5 , Louise Weir  1 , Nawaf Yassi  1   6 , Henry Zhao  1 , Alex Warwick  1   7 , Skye Coote  1 , Francesca Langenberg  1 , Leigh Branagan  8 , Wasseem Siddiqi  8 , Andrew Bivard  1 , Bruce C V Campbell  1 , Geoffrey A Donnan  1 , Stephen M Davis  1 ; MSU‐TELEMED Investigators †
Collaborators, Affiliations

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

Vignan Yogendrakumar et al. J Am Heart Assoc. .

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.

Keywords: mobile stroke unit; prehospital; stroke; telemedicine; trial design.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure .
Figure .. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) framework for evaluating the mobile stroke unit telemedicine model.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Turc G, Hadziahmetovic M, Walter S, Churilov L, Larsen K, Grotta JC, Yamal JM, Bowry R, Katsanos AH, Zhao H, et al. Comparison of mobile stroke unit with usual care for acute ischemic stroke management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Neurol. 2022;79:281–290. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.5321 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dietrich M, Walter S, Ragoschke‐Schumm A, Helwig S, Levine S, Balucani C, Lesmeister M, Haass A, Liu Y, Lossius HM, et al. Is prehospital treatment of acute stroke too expensive? An economic evaluation based on the first trial. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;38:457–463. doi: 10.1159/000371427 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen J, Lin X, Cai Y, Huang R, Yang S, Zhang G. A systematic review of mobile stroke unit among acute stroke patients: time metrics, adverse events, functional result and cost‐effectiveness. Front Neurol. 2022;13:803162. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.803162 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim J, Easton D, Zhao H, Coote S, Sookram G, Smith K, Stephenson M, Bernard S, Parsons MW, Yan B, et al. Economic evaluation of the Melbourne mobile stroke unit. Int J Stroke. 2021;16:466–475. doi: 10.1177/1747493020929944 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marseille E, Larson B, Kazi DS, Kahn JG, Rosen S. Thresholds for the cost‐effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:118–124. doi: 10.2471/BLT.14.138206 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data