Telemedicine networks for acute stroke: an analysis of global coverage, gaps and opportunities.

BACKGROUND

Despite the proven efficacy of telestroke in improving clinical outcomes by providing access to specialized expertise and allowing rapid expert hyperacute stroke management and decision-making, detailed operational evidence is scarce, especially for less developed or lower - income regions.

AIM

We aimed to map the global telestroke landscape and characterize existing networks.

METHODS

We employed a four-tiered approach to comprehensively identify telestroke networks, primarily involving engagement with national stroke experts, stroke societies, and international stroke authorities. A carefully designed questionnaire was then distributed to the leaders of all identified networks to assess these networks' structures, processes, and outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 254 telestroke networks distributed across 67 countries. High-income countries (HICs) concentrated 175 (69%) of the networks. No evidence of telestroke services was found in 58 (30%) countries. From the identified networks, 88 (34%) completed the survey, being 61 (71%) located in HICs. Network set-up was highly heterogenous, ranging from 17 (22%) networks with more than twenty affiliated hospitals, providing thousands of annual consultations using purpose-built highly specialized technology, to 11 (13%) networks with fewer than 120 consultations annually using generic videoconferencing equipment. Real-time video and image transfer was employed in 64 (75%) networks, while 62 (74%) conducting quality monitoring. Most networks established in the last three years were located in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive global survey of telestroke networks found significant variation in network coverage, set-up, and technology use. Most services are in HICs, and few services are in LMICs, although an emerging trend of new networks in these regions marks a pivotal moment in global telestroke care. The wide variation in quality monitoring practices across networks, with many failing to report key performance metrics, underscores the urgent need for standardized, resource-appropriate quality assurance measures that can be adapted to diverse settings.