Stroke survivor views on ambulance redirection as a strategy to increase access to thrombectomy in England

Abi Alton, Darren Flynn, David Burgess, Gary A. Ford, Chris Price, Martin James, Peter McMeekin, Michael Allen, Lisa Shaw, Philip White
{"title":"Stroke survivor views on ambulance redirection as a strategy to increase access to thrombectomy in England","authors":"Abi Alton, Darren Flynn, David Burgess, Gary A. Ford, Chris Price, Martin James, Peter McMeekin, Michael Allen, Lisa Shaw, Philip White","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2024.6.9.1.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy are effective time-sensitive treatments for selected cases of acute ischaemic stroke. While thrombolysis is widely available, thrombectomy can only be provided at facilities with the necessary equipment and interventionists.\n Suitable patients admitted to other hospitals require secondary transfer, causing delays to treatment. Pre-hospital ambulance redirection to thrombectomy facilities may improve access but treatment eligibility cannot be confirmed pre-hospital. Some redirected patients would travel further\n and be displaced without receiving thrombectomy. This study aimed to elicit stroke survivor and carer/relative views about the possible consequences of introducing a conceptual, idealised ambulance redirection pathway.Methods: Focus groups were undertaken using a topic guide describing\n four hypothetical ambulance redirection scenarios and their possible consequences: earlier treatment with thrombectomy; delayed diagnosis of non-stroke ‘mimic’ conditions; delayed thrombolysis treatment; and delayed diagnosis of haemorrhagic stroke. Meetings were audio recorded,\n transcribed verbatim and data analysed thematically using emergent coding.Results: Fifteen stroke survivors and carers/relatives participated in three focus groups. There was wide acceptance of possible low-risk consequences of ambulance redirection, including extended travel time,\n being further from home and experiencing longer hospital stays. Participants were more uncertain about higher-risk consequences, including delays in diagnosis/treatment for patients unsuitable for thrombectomy, but remained positive about ambulance redirection overall. Participants rationalised\n acceptance of higher-risk consequences by recognising that redirected patients would still access appropriate treatment, even if delayed. In addition, acceptance of ambulance redirection would be increased if there were robust clinical evidence showing net benefit over secondary transfer pathways.Conclusions:\n Participant views were generally supportive of ambulance redirection to facilitate access to thrombectomy. Further research is needed to demonstrate overall benefit in an NHS context.","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2024.6.9.1.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy are effective time-sensitive treatments for selected cases of acute ischaemic stroke. While thrombolysis is widely available, thrombectomy can only be provided at facilities with the necessary equipment and interventionists. Suitable patients admitted to other hospitals require secondary transfer, causing delays to treatment. Pre-hospital ambulance redirection to thrombectomy facilities may improve access but treatment eligibility cannot be confirmed pre-hospital. Some redirected patients would travel further and be displaced without receiving thrombectomy. This study aimed to elicit stroke survivor and carer/relative views about the possible consequences of introducing a conceptual, idealised ambulance redirection pathway.Methods: Focus groups were undertaken using a topic guide describing four hypothetical ambulance redirection scenarios and their possible consequences: earlier treatment with thrombectomy; delayed diagnosis of non-stroke ‘mimic’ conditions; delayed thrombolysis treatment; and delayed diagnosis of haemorrhagic stroke. Meetings were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and data analysed thematically using emergent coding.Results: Fifteen stroke survivors and carers/relatives participated in three focus groups. There was wide acceptance of possible low-risk consequences of ambulance redirection, including extended travel time, being further from home and experiencing longer hospital stays. Participants were more uncertain about higher-risk consequences, including delays in diagnosis/treatment for patients unsuitable for thrombectomy, but remained positive about ambulance redirection overall. Participants rationalised acceptance of higher-risk consequences by recognising that redirected patients would still access appropriate treatment, even if delayed. In addition, acceptance of ambulance redirection would be increased if there were robust clinical evidence showing net benefit over secondary transfer pathways.Conclusions: Participant views were generally supportive of ambulance redirection to facilitate access to thrombectomy. Further research is needed to demonstrate overall benefit in an NHS context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国中风幸存者对救护车改道作为增加血栓切除术机会的策略的看法
导言:静脉溶栓和机械性血栓切除术是针对特定急性缺血性中风病例的有效、时效性强的治疗方法。虽然溶栓治疗可广泛使用,但血栓切除术只能在具备必要设备和介入专家的机构进行。其他医院收治的合适患者需要二次转院,导致治疗延误。院前救护车将患者转送至血栓切除术机构可改善患者的就医条件,但治疗资格无法在院前得到确认。一些被转送的患者会走得更远,在没有接受血栓切除术的情况下被转移。本研究旨在了解中风幸存者和照护者/亲属对引入概念化、理想化的救护车转送路径可能造成的后果的看法:方法: 使用主题指南开展焦点小组讨论,该指南描述了四种假设的救护车转送情景及其可能的后果:提早进行血栓切除术治疗;延迟诊断非中风 "模拟 "病症;延迟溶栓治疗;延迟诊断出血性中风。对会议进行了录音、逐字记录,并使用突发编码对数据进行了主题分析:15 名中风幸存者和照护者/亲属参加了三个焦点小组。大家普遍接受救护车改道可能带来的低风险后果,包括延长旅行时间、离家更远以及住院时间更长。对于较高风险后果,包括不适合进行血栓切除术的患者的诊断/治疗延误,参与者较为不确定,但总体上对救护车转运仍持肯定态度。与会者认为,即使延误,被转送的患者仍可获得适当的治疗,从而合理地接受了较高风险后果。此外,如果有确凿的临床证据显示救护车转运比二次转运途径更有净效益,那么参与者对救护车转运的接受度会更高:与会者普遍支持通过救护车转运来促进血栓切除术的实施。需要开展进一步研究,以证明在国家医疗服务体系中的整体效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Behind the screen: exploring the effects of home working on 999 telephone clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparing independent prescribing to patient group direction use in a general practitioner out-of-hours service: a retrospective cross-sectional service evaluation. Influence of patient body weight on the probability of return of spontaneous circulation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an exploratory analysis. Introduction of a section for recording dementia improves data capture on the ambulance electronic patient record: evidence from a regional quality improvement project. The zero responder: a definition and report of current literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1