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

  • D. Tedstone Doherty
  • J. Dowling
  • P. Wright
  • J. Cuddihy
Original Paper
  • 49 Downloads

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Cardiovascular Health Strategy Group (1999). Building Healthier Hearts. Department of Health and Children.Google Scholar
  2. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    North West Immediate Care Programme (2003).Donegal Area Rapid Treatment Study (DARTS): Final Report. North Western Health Board.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rawles J. Attitudes of general practitioners to prehospital thrombolysis.Br Med J 1994; 309: 379Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rawles J, Ritchie L. Thrombolysis in peripheral general practices in Scotland: another rule of halves.Health Bull 1999; 57:1: 10–16.Google Scholar
  7. 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. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Tedstone Doherty
    • 1
  • J. Dowling
    • 2
  • P. Wright
    • 1
  • J. Cuddihy
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept of Public Health MedicineNSE-NWABallyshannon
  2. 2.North West Immediate Care ProgrammeIreland

Personalised recommendations