Skip to main content
Log in

The experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and hospital staff towards prehospital thrombolysis in a rural community

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the attitudes of hospital staff and general practitioners towards pre-hospital administration of thrombolysis.

Method

General practitioners, consultant physicians and nursing staff participated in the survey.

Results

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.

Conclusions

Pre-hospital thrombolysis programmes must be continuously monitored and evaluated to identify important factors that may prevent wider use of thrombolytic treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cardiovascular Health Strategy Group (1999). Building Healthier Hearts. Department of Health and Children.

  2. O’Neill J, Dowling J, Wright P et al. Patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction to a district general hospital: Baseline results and effect of audit.Irish Med J 2003; 96; 3.

    Google Scholar 

  3. GREAT Group. Feasibility, safety and efficacy of domiciliary thrombolysis by general practitioners: Grampian region early anistreplase trial.Br Med J 1992; 305:548–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. North West Immediate Care Programme (2003).Donegal Area Rapid Treatment Study (DARTS): Final Report. North Western Health Board.

  5. Rawles J. Attitudes of general practitioners to prehospital thrombolysis.Br Med J 1994; 309: 379

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rawles J, Ritchie L. Thrombolysis in peripheral general practices in Scotland: another rule of halves.Health Bull 1999; 57:1: 10–16.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Doherty D, Dowling J, Wright P, Murphy AW, Bury G, Bannan L. The potential use of prehospital thrombolysis in a rural community.Resus 2004, 61:303–307.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Doherty D, Dowling J, Wright P, Murphy AW, Bury G, Bannan L Prehospital thrombolysis in a rural community: A case series and clinical follow-up. Submitted toIrish Journal of Medical Sciences.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Tedstone Doherty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tedstone Doherty, D., Dowling, J., Wright, P. et al. The experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and hospital staff towards prehospital thrombolysis in a rural community. Ir J Med Sci 175, 20–25 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03167962

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03167962

Keywords

Navigation