Background and Purpose— The bedside clinical assessment of the patient with suspected stroke has not been well studied. Improving clinical skills may accelerate patient progress through the emergency department. We aimed to determine the frequency and nature of stroke mimics and to identify the key clinical features that distinguish between stroke and mimic at the bedside. Methods— Consecutive presentations to an urban teaching hospital with suspected stroke were recruited. A standard bedside clinical assessment was performed. The final diagnosis was determined by an expert panel, which had access to clinical features, brain imaging, and other tests. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the bedside features that distinguished stroke from mimic. Results— There were 350 presentations by 336 patients. The final diagnosis was stroke in 241 of 350 (69%) and mimic in 109 (31%). The mimics included 44 events labeled “possible stroke or TIA.” Eight items independently predicted the diagnosis in patients presenting with brain attack: cognitive impairment and abnormal signs in other systems suggested a mimic, an exact time of onset, definite focal symptoms, abnormal vascular findings, presence of neurological signs, being able to lateralize the signs to the left or right side of the brain, and being able to determine a clinical stroke subclassification suggested a stroke. Conclusions— The bedside clinical assessment can be streamlined substantially. This has important implications for teaching less experienced clinicians how to assess the patient with suspected stroke.

Background and purpose: barriers within the patient pathway can prevent early administration of thrombolytic therapy in patients admitted with acute stroke. This systematic review aimed to identify such barriers that have been reported in the medical literature. Methods: we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for prospective and retrospective observational studies that assessed the nature of barriers to delivery of thrombolysis for acute stroke. Results: we identified 54 eligible studies (including a total of 39,030 patients). The reported barriers included: (i) the patient or family did not recognise symptoms of stroke or seek urgent help, (ii) the general practitioner (rather than an ambulance) was called first, (iii) the paramedics and emergency department staff triaged stroke as non-urgent, (iv) delays in neuroimaging, (v) inefficient process of in-hospital emergency stroke care, (vi) difficulties in obtaining consent for thrombolysis, and (vii) physicians’ uncertainty about administering thrombolysis. Conclusions: we identified important pre-hospital and in-hospital barriers that should be overcome if thrombolysis is to be administered to stroke patients efficiently and equitably.

Objective To measure the global impact of COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of IV thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with 2 control 4-month periods. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes or classifications in stroke databases. Results There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] −11.7 to −11.3, p < 0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95% CI −13.8 to −12.7, p < 0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95% CI −13.7 to −10.3, p = 0.001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95% CI 9.2–9.8, p < 0.0001) was noted over the 2 later (May, June) vs the 2 earlier (March, April) pandemic months. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID-19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months.

Background: A significant proportion of acute stroke patients suffer neurological deterioration during the first few days of recovery.

Dementia interferes with older adults' functioning in cognitive, daily, psychosocial, and neuroendocrine domains. The present study examined the psychophysiological effects of dance movement therapy (DMT) and physical exercise for older adults with dementia. This randomized controlled trial recruited 204 older adults diagnosed with mild dementia into the DMT, exercise, or waitlist control group. Both DMT and exercise interventions had similar intensity and comprised 24 hr of intervention that spanned over 12 weeks. All participants completed self-report questionnaires on psychosocial well-being, daily functioning, neurocognitive assessments, and salivary cortisol measures at baseline and 3 follow-up measurements more than 1 year. The DMT group showed significant decreases in depression, loneliness, and negative mood (d = 0.33-0.42, p < .05) and improved daily functioning (d = 0.40, p < .01) and diurnal cortisol slope (d = 0.30, p < .01). The effects on daily functioning and cortisol slope remained at 1-year follow-up. The exercise group of matched intensity showed no significant effects on the outcomes. The study findings support the potential utility of DMT as a multifaceted intervention for improving various aspects of functioning in older adults with declining cognitive abilities. The lack of beneficial effects for our exercise intervention and long-term DMT effects highlights the need to maintain persistent levels of exercise with adequate intensity and duration.

Objectives: to compare the use of two falls risk-identification tools (Downton and STRATIFY) with clinical judgment (based upon the observation of wandering behaviour) in predicting falls of medically stable patients in a rehabilitation ward for older people. Methods: in a prospective observational study, with blinded end-point evaluation, 200 patients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation hospital had a STRATIFY and Downton Fall Risk assessment and were observed for wandering behaviour. Results: wandering had a predictive accuracy of 78%. A total of 157/200 were identified correctly compared to 100/200 using the Downton score (P < 0.0001 95%, CI 0.18–0.42), or 93/200 using STRATIFY (P < 0.0001; 95% CI 0.15–0.37). The Downton and STRATIFY tools demonstrated predictive accuracies of 50% and 46.5%, respectively, with no statistical significance between the two (P = 0.55; 95% CI 0.77–1.71). Sensitivity for predicting falls using wandering was 43.1% (22/51). This was significantly worse than Downton 92.2% (47/51: P < 0.001) and STRATIFY 82.3% (42/51: P < 0.001). Conclusions: this study showed that clinical observation had a higher accuracy than two used falls risk-assessment tools. However it was significantly less sensitive implying that fewer patients who fell were correctly identified as being at risk.