ArticleThe Canadian journal of cardiology2009
Evaluating the views of paramedics, cardiologists, emergency department physicians and nurses on advanced prehospital management of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emergency medical services in Saudi Arabia: A study on the significance of paramedics and their experiences on barriers as inhibitors of their efficiency.International journal of applied & basic medical research · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough advanced prehospital management (PHM) in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) reduces reperfusion delay and improves patient outcomes, its use in North America remains uncommon. Understanding perceived barriers to and facilitators of PHM implementation may support the expansion of programs, with associated patient benefit.
objectiveTo explore the attitudes and beliefs of paramedics, cardiologists, emergency physicians and nurses regarding these issues.
methodsTo maximize the potential to identify unpredictable issues within each of the four groups, focus group sessions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed for themes using the constant comparative method.
resultsAll 18 participants believed that PHM of STEMI decreased time to treatment and improved health outcomes. Despite agreeing that most paramedics were capable of providing PHM, regular maintenance of competence and medical overview were emphasized. Significant variations in perceptions were revealed regarding practical aspects of the PHM process and protocol, as well as ownership and responsibility of the patient. Success and failures of technology were also expressed. Varying arguments against a signed 'informed consent' were presented by the majority.
conclusionsFocus group discussions provided key insights into potential barriers to and facilitators of PHM in STEMI. Although all groups were supportive of the concept and its benefits, concerns were expressed and potential barriers identified. This novel body of knowledge will help elucidate future educational programs and protocol development, and identify future challenges to ensure successful PHM of STEMI, thereby reducing reperfusion delay and improving patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.