TABLE 2.
Barriers to prehospital managment (PHM) |
Score |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
EP | PARA | CARD | RN | |
1. Knowledge of PHM process and protocol | ||||
a. Lack of knowledge (or uncertainty) on aspects of the PHM protocol | + + | 0 | + | + |
b. Perception that focus on PHM will be robbing from trauma | + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
c. Perception that some hospital staff are unaware of PHM protocol | 0 | + + | 0 | 0 |
d. Incongruency in literature or understanding of literature on myocardial infarction (MI) therapy | 0 | + + | 0 | 0 |
e. Lack of knowledge of paramedic team protocols | + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2. Practical aspects of PHM | ||||
a. Perception that PHM will have no effect and/or will increase overcrowding in emergency department | + | + | 0 | + |
b. Perception that MI patients will avoid taking emergency medical services due to cost | + | + | 0 | 0 |
c. Perception that patients with MI will avoid going to the hospital due to wait times | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
d. Perception of lack of communication between paramedic and hospital | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
3. Ownership of and taking responsibility for patient | ||||
a. Negative perceptions about steps in the protocol (ie, PHM-diagnosed patient stopping at the emergency department for triage) | + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
b. Perceptions on ownership of and taking responsibility for patient | + + | + | + | + |
4. Capability and interest of paramedic to provide PHM | ||||
a. Skepticism (lack of trust) in some paramedics to carry out PHM effectively | + + | + + | 0 | 0 |
b. Perception that some paramedics in rural areas are not capable of effectively providing PHM | 0 | 0 | 0 | + + |
c. Perception of paramedic misdiagnosis | + + | + | 0 | + |
d. Perception that paramedics’ inability to handle complications (or situations outside of protocol) will cause problems | + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
e. Perception that some physicians may be resistant to PHM | + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
f. Perception that some paramedics will be disappointed by Vital Heart Response physicians’ decisions | 0 | + + | 0 | 0 |
5. Technological assistance | ||||
a. Perception of technological failures inhibiting ability to manage patient | + | + + | + | 0 |
b. Knowledge of technical problems as a barrier to PHM | 0 | + + | 0 | 0 |
Score | ||||
Facilitators of PHM | EP | PARA | CARD | RN |
1. Benefits of PHM | ||||
a. Knowledge that expertise is brought to patients with PHM | + | + | 0 | 0 |
b. Perception that PHM may increase the flow of in-hospital patient treatment | + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
c. Perception that PHM may decrease in-hospital workload | + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
d. Perception that PHM may increase the number of people taking ambulances during a heart attack with public awareness programs | + | + | + | 0 |
e. Perception that PHM process will benefit patients even if there are contraindications to drug use | 0 | + | + | 0 |
f. Perception that PHM will decrease cost to health care system | 0 | + | 0 | + |
g. Knowledge of clinical benefit (including reducing time to treatment) | + + | + + | + | + |
2. Medical overview and team relations | ||||
a. Integrating key players to form a team approach (accepting paramedic as ‘equals’) or (understanding the importance of a good physician-paramedic relationship) | + | + + | 0 | 0 |
b. Perception that medical overview is needed to ensure effective treatment of patient in the field | + + | + + | + | + + |
c. Perception that paramedic may have better access to cardiologists than emergency physicians | 0 | + + | 0 | 0 |
d. Perception of sound communication between paramedic and hospital | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
e. Perception that rural paramedics have a closer relationship than urban paramedics with respective hospitals | 0 | 0 | + + | 0 |
3. Practical aspects of PHM process and protocol | ||||
a. Knowledge of some emergency medical service protocols | + + | + + | 0 | 0 |
b. Perception that a simplified protocol for the stakeholders will facilitate PHM | 0 | 0 | + + | + |
c. Knowledge of real-life field experience or knowledge of source of delays to treatment | 0 | + + | 0 | 0 |
d. Perception that placing cardiologists at peripheral sites will facilitate PHM | + | 0 | 0 | + |
e. Perception that setting benchmark times for steps in the protocol is needed | 0 | 0 | + + | 0 |
f. Consistency of ST elevation MI treatment protocol (prehospital versus inhospital) | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
4. Training and regular maintenance of competency | ||||
a. Perception that continuous training (to maintain skills) by paramedics will facilitate PHM | + + | + + | + + | + + |
b. Perception that simulations may complement real-life exposure to MI cases to maintain competency | + + | + + | 0 | 0 |
c. Perception that increasing the quality of paramedic education program is needed to promote confidence | 0 | + + | 0 | 0 |
d. Knowledge that one must be critical of results published in the literature | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
5. Paramedics’ willingness and capability to manage acute MI patients | ||||
a. Perception that paramedics are capable of providing prehospital care to acute MI patients | + + | + + | + | + + |
b. Paramedics’ ability to handle bleeding (complication) | + | 0 | + + | 0 |
c. Paramedic will find added responsibility of providing PHM to be professionally rewarding | 0 | + + | + | 0 |
d. Knowledge that PHF is protocol-driven and perception that ST elevation MI is not too difficult to treat | + + | + + | 0 | 0 |
6. Technological assistance | ||||
a. Perception that technology is a positive factor in PHM | 0 | + | 0 | 0 |
b. Confidence in electrocardiogram technology and transmission | 0 | 0 | + | 0 |
See Table 1 for scoring criteria. CARD Cardiologists; EP Emergency physicians; PARA Paramedics; RN Emergency nurses