Related Experiment Videos
Thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: reducing in hospital treatment delay
Insights
Staff education significantly reduced door-to-needle times for acute myocardial infarction thrombolysis, cutting delays by 32%. While in-hospital delays decreased, most time was lost before hospital arrival, indicating a need for broader strategies.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Emergency Medicine
- Healthcare Quality Improvement
Background:
- Early thrombolytic treatment is crucial for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) outcomes.
- Significant in-hospital delays in administering thrombolysis were observed at Auckland Hospital.
Purpose of the Study:
- To document existing time delays in thrombolysis administration for AMI.
- To prospectively evaluate the impact of a staff education program on reducing in-hospital delays.
- To achieve a target "door to needle time" of under 30 minutes.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective chart review (Jan-Jun 1993) to establish baseline delays.
- Implementation of a staff education program focused on fast-tracking AMI thrombolysis.
- Prospective audit (Feb-May 1994) to assess the program's effectiveness.
Main Results:
- Median pre-hospital delay was 2.5 hours; median in-hospital "door to needle time" was 59 minutes in 1993.
- Following education, median "door to needle time" decreased by 32% to 40 minutes (p=0.03).
- Proportion of patients treated within 30 minutes doubled from 13% to 27% (p=0.18).
Conclusions:
- Staff training and guidelines effectively reduce in-hospital delays for AMI thrombolysis.
- Further strategies are needed, as most delays occur pre-hospital.
- Thrombolysis administration in the coronary care unit or emergency department is recommended; ongoing quality assessment is vital.
Aim:
Thrombolytic treatment when given early in acute myocardial infarction is beneficial. This study was initiated to firstly, document the existing time delays in the administration of thrombolysis at Auckland Hospital, and secondly, prospectively assess the effect of a staff education programme to reduce in-hospital delay. The goal was a "door to needle time" of less than 30 minutes.
Methods:
The time delays in the administration of thrombolysis to patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to the coronary care unit at Auckland Hospital were established. This was done with a retrospective chart review over a six month period January to June 1993. This was followed by a staff education programme to fast track the management of patients eligible for thrombolysis. A prospective assessment was performed from February to May 1994 to audit the effectiveness of the programme.
Results:
Most of the delay in the administration of thrombolysis occurred in the community prior to arrival at hospital (median delay 2.5 hours). However there was still a significant delay in hospital with a median door to needle time of 59 minutes in 1993. Following the education programme in 1994 the median door to needle time was reduced by 32% to 40 minutes (p = 0.03). The proportion of patients with a door to needle time of less than 30 minutes doubled from 13% in 1993 to 27% in 1994 (p = 0.18).
Conclusion:
Staff training and thrombolysis guidelines are effective in reducing in-hospital treatment delay but additional strategies may be warranted. Thrombolysis should be administered in the coronary care unit or emergency department to avoid delay. Ongoing assessment of standards will be required in the general hospital setting as a quality indicator.