J Rawles1. 1. Medicines Assessment Research Unit, University of Aberdeen.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate reasons for general practitioners not giving thrombolytic treatment to eligible patients with acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN: Postal questionnaires were sent to 424 general practitioners. SUBJECTS: 97 general practitioners who had taken part in the Grampian region early anistreplase trial, 185 whose practices in Scotland were at least 24 km from a district general hospital, and 142 who had attended postgraduate conferences at which thrombolysis had been discussed; 87, 158, and 125 respectively responded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Answers to questions about readiness to use thrombolytic treatment. RESULTS: Response rate was 87% (370/424). Almost all respondents (350) were convinced of benefits of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction, and 277 were convinced that there were additional benefits from its administration in the community at first opportunity. Most doctors working 16 km or more from hospital thought that giving treatment at home would appreciably save time (200/274). Most doctors agreed that they could make time to give thrombolytic treatment (278), and would be willing to record an electrocardiogram (284), and would be able to interpret it (280). Sixty four respondents (17%) reported using thrombolytic treatment in previous year. Among non-users, 150 (49%) were unwilling to use thrombolytic treatment without further training. While many non-users (210 (69%)) were willing to use thrombolytic treatment without encouragement from Department of Health, 184 (60%) were unwilling to use it unless encouraged to do so by their local cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS: The need to become better informed about thrombolysis and lack of encouragement from local cardiologists were important factors preventing wider use of thrombolytic treatment in the community by general practitioners.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate reasons for general practitioners not giving thrombolytic treatment to eligible patients with acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN: Postal questionnaires were sent to 424 general practitioners. SUBJECTS: 97 general practitioners who had taken part in the Grampian region early anistreplase trial, 185 whose practices in Scotland were at least 24 km from a district general hospital, and 142 who had attended postgraduate conferences at which thrombolysis had been discussed; 87, 158, and 125 respectively responded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Answers to questions about readiness to use thrombolytic treatment. RESULTS: Response rate was 87% (370/424). Almost all respondents (350) were convinced of benefits of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction, and 277 were convinced that there were additional benefits from its administration in the community at first opportunity. Most doctors working 16 km or more from hospital thought that giving treatment at home would appreciably save time (200/274). Most doctors agreed that they could make time to give thrombolytic treatment (278), and would be willing to record an electrocardiogram (284), and would be able to interpret it (280). Sixty four respondents (17%) reported using thrombolytic treatment in previous year. Among non-users, 150 (49%) were unwilling to use thrombolytic treatment without further training. While many non-users (210 (69%)) were willing to use thrombolytic treatment without encouragement from Department of Health, 184 (60%) were unwilling to use it unless encouraged to do so by their local cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS: The need to become better informed about thrombolysis and lack of encouragement from local cardiologists were important factors preventing wider use of thrombolytic treatment in the community by general practitioners.