BACKGROUND:Evidence of the cost implications and health outcomes associated with the use of mobile stroke units (MSU) is required to support their utilization. We aimed to evaluate the causal effect of the use of an MSU compared with a standard ambulance on hospitalization costs and 90- to 180-day health outcomes. METHODS:Causal effect estimation was performed using patient-level data from a cohort of patients with stroke in 2018 identified from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (Victoria) and Melbourne MSU. These data were linked to Ambulance Victoria and government-held administrative data sets. In total, linked data from 8657 patients were available. Propensity score matching was used to define comparator groups within a target trial framework. Costs included emergency department and hospital admission costs in the first 180 days after stroke. Multivariable regression analyses of the matched data were used to compare costs and outcomes (mortality and modified Rankin Scale) between MSU and standard ambulance groups. RESULTS:The target trial sample included 96 patients transported by the MSU (intervention) and 198 patients transported by standard ambulance services (control). Of these, the mean age was 76 years and 157 (53%) were men. A greater proportion of patients received mechanical thrombectomy in the intervention group than the control group (40% versus 23%; P<0.001). The adjusted hospital costs were $17 949 greater in the intervention group than the control group (95% CI, $4682-$31 214; P=0.01). Patients in intervention group doubled the odds of achieving nondisability (modified Rankin Scale scores of 0-1, adjusted odds ratio of 2.11 [95% CI, 1.07-4.18]) and halved the mortality rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.32-0.86]) within 90 to 180 days poststroke compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS:There are important cost implications and improved outcomes from using the MSU that are likely related to increased provision of reperfusion therapy.

BACKGROUND:Mobile stroke units (MSUs) accelerate prehospital acute stroke care and improve outcomes. Both onboard and telemedicine neurologist models of care are used but have not been directly compared. METHODS:MSU-TELEMED was a randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial comparing onboard neurologist care to a telemedicine care model for people presenting to an MSU with suspected stroke. MSU care was prospectively randomized by day to onboard versus telemedicine care. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite outcome using a win-odds approach that prioritized: (1) safety, (2) scene-to-treatment-decision time, and (3) percentage of the total case time the neurologist spent in direct care (higher values denote better resource use). Every participant in each group was compared to those in the other, resulting in a "win/tie/loss" distribution for telemedicine compared to onboard. RESULTS:A total of 275 participants were assigned to telemedicine (n=135) or onboard (n=140) neurologist care groups. The primary outcome of win/tie/loss distribution favored the telemedicine model (76%/4%/20%) with an adjusted win odds of 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-5.1). Safety events were similar (13% telemedicine vs. 12% onboard, risk ratio 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.8). Median scene-to-treatment-decision time was 19 minutes in the telemedicine group and 13 minutes in the onboard group (adjusted difference in median time 4 minutes; 95% CI, 1.9-5.9). The median percentage of the neurologist's time directly involved in patient care was 100% in the telemedicine group and 33% in the onboard group (adjusted difference in median percentage 63 percentage points; 95% CI, 53-74). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to an onboard model, an MSU telemedicine model of care was superior based on a composite hierarchical outcome of safety, scene-to-treatment-decision time, and percentage of the neurologist's time spent in direct care. (Funded by the Sylvia and Charles Viertel Charitable Foundation and the Medical Research Future Fund "Golden Hour"; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05991310.).

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.

Introduction: Widely used emergency dispatch algorithms such as the Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System (AMPDS) have limited diagnostic accuracy for prehospital diagnosis of stroke. With advent of mobile stroke units (MSU), this inaccuracy prevents optimal dispatch to patients who may benefit. Expedited endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is a major contributor to net benefit of MSUs. We assessed the accuracy of AMPDS for recognizing stroke in thrombectomy patients in the Australian state of Victoria. Methods: We included consecutive patients accepted for EVT (direct and secondary transfer) to The Royal Melbourne Hospital from 2007-2021 in whom linked AMPDS dispatch codes could be obtained from Ambulance Victoria. The primary outcome was the proportion of cases dispatched as stroke vs non-stroke with subgroup analyses of the effect of baseline clinical severity, metropolitan vs rural dispatch and time to thrombectomy. Chi square and Mann Whitney tests were used as appropriate. Results: A total of n=618 patients were included with baseline NIHSS 16 (IQR 10-20). Of these, only 62% (95% CI 58-66) were initially dispatched as suspected stroke, with the most common non-stroke diagnoses being “Unconscious/Fainting” (19.2%) and “Falls” (6.9%). Those with a higher baseline severity (NIHSS ≥10) were less likely to be classified as stroke than those with lower severity (59% vs 76%, p<0.001), while no difference was found between metropolitan and rural patients (p=0.066). Overall, no significant time differences were found between stroke and non-stroke dispatches for ambulance dispatch to arterial access (median 208 vs 216 min, p=0.593) or hospital arrival to arterial access (median 42 vs 42 min, p=0.851). However, only 32 patients were treated on the MSU, which commenced operation November 2017. Conclusions: Almost 40% of thrombectomy patients did not receive an initial AMPDS dispatch of suspected stroke and those with higher baseline severity were more likely to be misclassified. Although time to thrombectomy was not significantly different between stroke vs non-stroke dispatches, MSU treatment was under-represented. Our findings have implications for emergency medical services and particularly mobile stroke units which rely on accurate stroke dispatch.

Background: Tenecteplase administered to patients with ischaemic stroke in a mobile stroke unit (MSU) has been shown to reduce the perfusion lesion volumes and result in ultra-early recovery. We now seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase in the MSU. Methods: A within-trial (TASTE-A) economic analysis and a model-based long-term cost-effectiveness analysis were performed. This post hoc within-trial economic analysis utilised the patient-level data (intention to treat, ITT) prospectively collected over the trial to calculate the difference in both healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, estimated from modified Rankin scale score). A Markov microsimulation model was developed to simulate the long-term costs and benefits. Results: In total, there were 104 patients with ischaemic stroke randomised to tenecteplase (n = 55) or alteplase (n = 49) treatment groups, respectively in the TASTE-A trial. The ITT-based analysis showed that treatment with tenecteplase was associated with non-signficantly lower costs (A$28,903 vs A$40,150 (p = 0.056)) and greater benefits (0.171 vs 0.158 (p = 0.457)) than that for the alteplase group over the first 90 days post the index stroke. The long-term model showed that tenecteplase led to greater savings in costs (-A$18,610) and more health benefits (0.47 QALY or 0.31 LY gains). Tenecteplase-treated patients had reduced costs for rehospitalisation (-A$1464), nursing home care (-A$16,767) and nonmedical care (-A$620) per patient. Conclusions: Treatment of ischaemic stroke patients with tenecteplase appeared to be cost-effective and improve QALYs in the MSU setting based on Phase II data. The reduced total cost from tenecteplase was driven by savings from acute hospitalisation and reduce need for nursing home care.

Background Internationally, Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) ambulances have changed pre-hospital acute stroke care delivery. MSU clinical and cost-effectiveness studies are emerging, but little is known about important factors for achieving sustainability of this innovative model of care.Methods Mixed-methods study from the Melbourne MSU (operational since November 2017) process evaluation. Participant purposive sampling included clinical, operational and executive/management representatives from Ambulance Victoria (AV) (emergency medical service provider), the MSU clinical team, and receiving hospitals. Sustainability was defined as ongoing MSU operations, including MSU workforce and future model considerations. Theoretically-based on-line survey with Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Self Determination Theory (SDT, Intrinsic Motivation), and open-text questions targeting barriers and benefits was administered (June-September 2019). Individual/group interviews were conducted, eliciting improvement suggestions and requirements for ongoing use. Descriptive and regression analyses (quantitative data) and directed content and thematic analysis (open text and interview data) were conducted.Results There were 135 surveys completed. Identifying that the MSU was beneficial to daily work (β = 0.61), not experiencing pressure/tension about working on the MSU (β = 0.17) and thinking they did well working within the team model (β = 0.17) were significantly associated with wanting to continue working within the MSU model [R2 = 0.76; F(15, 60) = 12.76, P < .001]. Experiences varied between those on the MSU team and those working with the MSU. Advantages were identified for patients (better, faster care) and clinicians (interdisciplinary learning). Disadvantages included challenges integrating into established systems, and establishing working relationships. Themes identified from 35 interviews were MSU team composition, MSU vehicle design and layout, personnel recruitment and rostering, communication improvements between organisations, telemedicine options, MSU operations and dispatch specificity.Conclusion Important factors affecting the sustainability of the MSU model of stroke care emerged. A cohesive team approach, with identifiable benefits and good communication between participating organisations is important for clinical and operational sustainability.

RATIONALE:Mobile stroke units (MSUs) are increasingly being implemented to provide acute stroke care in the prehospital environment, but a comprehensive implementation evaluation has not been undertaken.AIM:To identify successes and challenges in the pre- and initial operations of the first Australian MSU service from an interdisciplinary perspective.METHODS:Process evaluation of the Melbourne MSU with a mixed-methods design. Purposive sampling targeted key stakeholder groups. Online surveys (administered June-September 2019) and semistructured interviews (October-November 2019) explored experiences. Directed content analysis (raters' agreement 85%) and thematic analysis results are presented using the Interactive Sociotechnical Analysis framework.RESULTS:Participants representing executive/program operations, MSU clinicians and hospital-based clinicians completed 135 surveys and 38 interviews. Results converged, with major themes addressing successes and challenges: stakeholders, vehicle, knowledge, training/education, communication, work processes and working relationships.CONCLUSIONS:Successes and challenges of establishing a new MSU service extend beyond technical, to include operational and social aspects across prehospital and hospital environments.

Introduction: Mobile stroke units (MSU) have demonstrated major time savings for thrombolysis but mixed evidence for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). COVID-19 precautions have dramatically slowed EVT workflows across Australia and we therefore aimed to examine the effect of the Melbourne MSU on thrombectomy times before and during the current pandemic. Methods: Patients receiving EVT facilitated by the Melbourne MSU from 2017-2021 were compared to non-MSU patients (metropolitan direct and secondary transfer for EVT) admitted to the largest Melbourne EVT centre. Quantile regression analysis was used to calculate the median time difference (50 th quantile) between MSU and non-MSU patients before and during the pandemic, grouped by patients within an EVT centre ambulance catchment or those outside (who either received inter-hospital transfer or MSU-facilitated bypass to an EVT centre). Results: A total of 402 patients (112 MSU) were included. Pre-pandemic, no reduction in dispatch to arterial access time was seen for MSU patients within an EVT centre catchment (median 11min slower, p=0.38). However, a significant time saving was observed during the pandemic (median 29 min faster, p<0.001, p-interaction=0.0065). MSU care reduced hospital arrival to arterial access time by median 19min pre-pandemic vs 40 min during the pandemic, p-interaction<0.001). The pandemic did not alter MSU-related time savings for patients located outside of an EVT centre catchment. Conclusions: Melbourne MSU facilitation of EVT during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in greater time savings for patients located close to a thrombectomy centre, while substantial time savings were maintained for those needing bypass from the local non-EVT hospital. This suggests that MSU operation enables streamlined EVT workflows during the pandemic by providing early pre-hospital notification and interventional angiography activation.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Mobile stroke units (MSUs) are ambulance-based prehospital stroke care services. Through immediate roadside assessment and onboard brain imaging, MSUs provide faster stroke management with improved patient outcomes. Mobile stroke units have enabled the development of expanded scope of practice for stroke nurses; however, there is limited published evidence about these evolving prehospital acute nursing roles. AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore the expanded scope of practice of nurses working on MSUs by identifying MSUs with onboard nurses; describing the roles and responsibilities, training, and experience of MSU nurses, through a search of the literature; and describing 2 international MSU services incorporating nurses from Memphis, Tennessee, and Melbourne, Australia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice database using the terms “mobile stroke unit” and “nurse.” Existing MSUs were identified through the PRE-hospital Stroke Treatment Organization to determine models that involved nurses. We describe 2 MSUs involving nurses: one in Memphis and one in Melbourne, led by 2 of our authors. RESULTS: Ninety articles were found describing 15 MSUs; however, staffing details were lacking, and it is unknown how many employ nurses. Nine articles described the role of the nurse, but role specifics, training, and expertise were largely undocumented. The MSU in Memphis, the only unit to be staffed exclusively by onboard nurse practitioners, is supported by a neurologist who consults via telephone. The Melbourne MSU plans to trial a nurse-led telemedicine model in the near future. CONCLUSION: We lack information on how many MSUs employ nurses, and the nurses' scope of practice, training, and expertise. Expert stroke nurse practitioners can safely perform many of the tasks undertaken by the onboard neurologist, making a nurse-led telemedicine model an effective and potentially cost-effective model that should be considered for all MSUs.

Stroke is the second most common cause of death and remains a persistent health challenge globally. Due to its highly time-sensitive nature, earlier stroke treatments should be enforced for improved patient outcome. The mobile stroke unit (MSU) was conceptualized and implemented to deliver the diagnosis and treatment to a stroke patient in the ultra-early time window (<1 h) in the pre-hospital setting and has shown to be clinically effective. However, due to geographical challenges, most rural communities are still unable to receive timely stroke intervention, as access to specialized stroke facilities for optimal stroke treatment poses a challenge. Therefore, the aircraft counterpart (Air-MSU) of the conventional road MSU offers a plausible solution to this shortcoming by expanding the catchment area for regional locations in Australia. The implementation of Air-MSU is currently hindered by several technical limitations, where current commercially available CT scanners are still oversized and too heavy to be integrated into a conventional helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS). In collaboration with the Australian Stroke Alliance and Melbourne Brain Centre, this article aims to explore the possibilities and methodologies in reducing the weight and, effectively, the size of an existing CT scanner, such that it can be retrofitted into the proposed search and rescue helicopter—Agusta Westland AW189. The result will be Australia’s first-ever customized CT scanner structure designed to fit in a search-and-rescue helicopter used for Air-MSU.

Background Mobile stroke units (MSUs) equipped with a CT scanner reduce time to thrombolytic treatment and improve patient outcomes. We tested the hypothesis that tenecteplase administered in an MSU would result in superior reperfusion at hospital arrival, when compared with alteplase. Methods The TASTE-A trial is a phase 2, randomised, open-label trial at the Melbourne MSU and five tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Patients (aged >= 18 years) with ischaemic stroke who were eligible for thrombolytic treatment were randomly allocated in the MSU to receive, within 4.5 h of symptom onset, either standard-of-care alteplase (0.9 mg/kg [maximum 90 mg], administered intravenously with 10% as a bolus over 1 min and 90% as an infusion over 1 h), or the investigational product tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg [maximum 25 mg], administered as an intravenous bolus over 10 s), before being transported to hospital for ongoing care. The primary outcome was the volume of the perfusion lesion on arrival at hospital, assessed by CT-perfusion imaging. Secondary safety outcomes were modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 5 or 6 at 90 days, symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage and any haemorrhage within 36 h, and death at 90 days. Assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04071613, and is completed. Findings Between June 20, 2019, and Nov 16, 2021, 104 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive either tenecteplase (n=55) or alteplase (n=49). The median age of patients was 73 years (IQR 61-83), and the median NIHSS at baseline was 8 (5-14). On arrival at the hospital, the perfusion lesion volume was significantly smaller with tenecteplase (median 12 mL [IQR 3-28]) than with alteplase (35 mL [18-76]; adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.81; p=0.0030). At 90 days, an mRS of 5 or 6 was reported in eight (15%) patients allocated to tenecteplase and ten (20%) patients allocated to alteplase (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.23-2.16; p=0.54). Five (9%) patients allocated to tenecteplase and five (10%) patients allocated to alteplase died from any cause at 90 days (aOR 1.12, 95% CI 0.26-4.90; p=0.88). No cases of symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage were reported within 36 h with either treatment. Up to day 90, 13 serious adverse events were noted: five (5%) in patients treated with tenecteplase, and eight (8%) in patients treated with alteplase. Interpretation Treatment with tenecteplase on the MSU in Melbourne resulted in a superior rate of early reperfusion compared with alteplase, and no safety concerns were noted. This trial provides evidence to support the use of tenecteplase and MSUs in an optimal model of stroke care. Copyright (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Bivard, is Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, try and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, The rsity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (ORCID: /orcid.org/0000-0001-7762-5832). Michael Stephenson, is ExecutiveDirector of ClinicalOperations, Ambulance Victoria, Doncaster; and Departments of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine and of Paramedicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. Mark W. Parsons, is Professor of Neurology, Melbourne Brain Centre and Department of Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne; and South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia (ORCID: https://orcid.org/ 0000-0001-8874-2487).

INTRODUCTION:Mobile stroke units (MSUs) equipped with a CT scanner are increasingly being used to assess and treat stroke patients' prehospital with thrombolysis and transfer them to the most appropriate hospital for ongoing stroke care and thrombectomy when indicated. The effect of MSUs in both reducing the time to reperfusion treatment and improving patient outcomes is now established. There is now an opportunity to improve the efficacy of treatment provided by the MSU. Tenecteplase is a potent plasminogen activator, which may have benefits over the standard of care stroke lytic alteplase. Specifically, in the MSU environment tenecteplase presents practical benefits since it is given as a single bolus and does not require an infusion over an hour like alteplase. OBJECTIVE:In this trial, we seek to investigate if tenecteplase, given to patients with acute ischaemic stroke as diagnosed on the MSU, improves the rate of early reperfusion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:TASTE-A is a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) phase II trial of patients who had an ischaemic stroke assessed in an MSU within 4.5 hours of symptom onset. The primary endpoint is early reperfusion measured by the post-lysis volume of the CT perfusion lesion performed immediately after hospital arrival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was approved by the Royal Melbourne Hospital Human Ethics committee. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at academic conferences and disseminated among consumer and healthcare professional audiences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT04071613.

BackgroundCoordinator roles are integral to delivering best practice stroke care. Evidence related to the challenges faced by clinicians working in these positions is lacking.AimTo explore the barriers to working in acute stroke coordinator roles.MethodsSelf-administered online national survey (including closed and open-text questions) of clinicians in coordinator roles in Australia. Non-physician health professionals who worked in a formal or informally recognised clinical leadership position for acute stroke were eligible. Participants were identified from the National Audit (Australia), and advertising via national networks/associations. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, inductive thematic analysis was used for open-text responses, with all results triangulated.FindingsA total of 141 eligible clinicians were identified; 105 in coordinator roles responded (103 hospitals); and 96 answered questions related to barriers (91% female, 89% registered nurses). Having insufficient time to perform the role was a major barrier. In particular, having too many responsibilities (55%) and limited staffing allocation (45%) was perceived to impact care delivery. Inequity in classifications and remuneration, both within and across different states of Australia, were common concerns. Environmental barriers, particularly related to managerial support (31%), and associated acknowledgement and recognition of the role especially from executive/management, were frequently raised. Other challenges included limited professional development opportunities and funding support for ongoing education, and inadequate orientation to the role (27%).ConclusionTo develop and retain clinicians in coordinator roles for optimising stroke care, hospitals should address the modifiable barriers faced by those working in these positions, including greater formal recognition and sufficient employment fractions.