The experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and hospital staff towards prehospital thrombolysis in a rural community
- Cite this article as:
- Tedstone Doherty, D., Dowling, J., Wright, P. et al. Ir J Med Sci (2006) 175: 20. doi:10.1007/BF03167962
In rural areas it is impossible for eligible patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to receive thrombolysis within the recommended 90 minutes unless administered in the community by the general practitioner.
The aim of this study was to describe the attitudes of hospital staff and general practitioners towards pre-hospital administration of thrombolysis.
General practitioners, consultant physicians and nursing staff participated in the survey.
General practitioners were convinced of the added benefits of administration of thrombolysis in the community and believed the hospital had a role to play. Likewise the hospital staff agreed with the benefits of pre-hospital thrombolysis. However, they felt that the decision to thrombolyse patients should be made in consultation with the hospital.
Pre-hospital thrombolysis programmes must be continuously monitored and evaluated to identify important factors that may prevent wider use of thrombolytic treatment.