ArticleBritish paramedic journal2023
Paramedic recognition of posterior circulation stroke: a vignette and focus group study.
Article in British paramedic journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The main pre-hospital screening tool used for stroke in Ireland and the United Kingdom is the FAST (face, arms, speech, time) test. However, posterior circulation stroke (PCS) patients may be FAST negative on exam, presenting with sudden dizziness, headaches, visual problems, nausea and vomiting and balance/co-ordination problems. There is a lack of research into paramedic recognition of PCS, and this study sought to evaluate recognition rates among paramedics (Ps) and advanced paramedics (APs) in Ireland. Methods: A cross-sectional sequential exploratory design was chosen. An anonymous online survey was carried out, which informed focus group discussions. The survey contained six clinical vignettes, two of which were PCS presentations. Correct diagnosis, hospital destination and type of pre-alert were recorded. Focus groups were chaired by an independent moderator via Zoom. Recordings were transcribed and thematic analysis was carried out to create codes and themes. Results: One hundred and fifty-one staff members (91 Ps, 60 APs) completed the survey (response rate 40%). Of these, 67% did not recognise PCS symptoms and 77% did not choose to transport to a stroke unit. For those correctly suspecting PCS, 42% requested resus at the stroke unit and 18% requested resus in the local emergency department (ED). Two focus groups of four practitioners (n = 8) took place. Three main themes were created: (1) comfort levels with posterior stroke, with subthemes of recognition and personal experiences; (2) education, with subthemes of clinical practice guideline (CPG) issues and training issues; and (3) hospital factors, with subthemes of pre-alerting and disconnect between hospital and emergency medical services. Participants were uncomfortable with PCS recognition and bypassing their local ED. More training was called for, with a dedicated CPG. Relationships with hospital staff affected willingness to pre-alert. Conclusions: In this sample group, recognition of PCS and onward transfer to a stroke unit was low. Focus groups showed that practitioners were uncomfortable recognising PCS and bypassing a local ED without adequate training and a dedicated CPG. Relationships with hospital staff also affected pre-alert decisions.
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.