Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Hospital comparison of stroke care in Sweden: a register-based study
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: BMJ Open, ISSN 2044-6055, E-ISSN 2044-6055, Vol. 7, no 9, article id e015244Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background and purpose The objective of this study was to estimate the level of health outcomes and resource use at a hospital level during the first year after a stroke, and to identify any potential differences between hospitals after adjusting for patient characteristics (case mix). Method Data from several registries were linked on individual level: seven regional patient administrative systems, Swedish Stroke Register, Statistics Sweden, National Board of Health and Welfare and Swedish Social Insurance Agency. The study population consisted of 14 125 patients presenting with a stroke during 2010. Case-mix adjusted analysis of hospital differences was made on five aspects of health outcomes and resource use, 1 year post-stroke. Results The results indicated that 26% of patients had died within a year of their stroke. Among those who survived, almost 5% had a recurrent stroke and 40% were left with a disability. On average, the patients had 22 inpatient days and 23 outpatient visits, and 13% had moved into special housing. There were significant variations between hospitals in levels of health outcomes achieved and resources used after adjusting for case mix. Conclusion Differences in health outcomes and resource use between hospitals were substantial and not entirely explained by differences in patient mix, indicating tendencies of unequal stroke care in Sweden. Healthcare organisation of regions and other structural features could potentially explain parts of the differences identified.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP , 2017. Vol. 7, no 9, article id e015244
National Category
General Practice
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-142870DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015244ISI: 000412650700042PubMedID: 28882906OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-142870DiVA, id: diva2:1165609
Available from: 2017-12-13 Created: 2017-12-13 Last updated: 2018-06-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1156 kB)12 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1156 kBChecksum SHA-512
e2417ded0cee04ca3c00023cf3a665626d3440e0de9c582d13dadae6d395f46d4a7b140d22fe32d09457c5392ea0b6c3bf19aaab2e961e8c875fa7f19ff79e41
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lilja, Mikael
By organisation
Family Medicine
In the same journal
BMJ Open
General Practice

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 12 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 41 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf