New Zealand paramedics are ready for an autonomous pre-hospital thrombolysis protocol

Paul Davis, Graham Howie, Bridget Dicker

Abstract


Introduction

Internationally, autonomous paramedic-delivered pre-hospital thrombolysis (PHT) administration for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients has proven to be a highly effective strategy in facilitating expedited delivery of this treatment modality. However, current New Zealand models rely on physician authorised telemetry-based systems which have proved problematic, particularly due to technological failings. The aim of this study is to establish whether current paramedic education in New Zealand is sufficient for the introduction of an autonomous paramedic clinical decision-making model of PHT.

Methods

A one-hour workshop introduced a new PHT protocol to 81 self-selected paramedic participants – both rural and metropolitan based – from New Zealand. Paramedics were then tested in protocol application through completion of a scenario-based standardised written test. Four written scenarios constructed from actual field cases assessed 12-lead electrocardiogram interpretation, understanding of protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria, and treatment rationale. Ten multiple-choice questions further tested cardiac and pharmacology knowledge as well as protocol application.

Results 

Overall clinical decision-making showed a sensitivity of 92.0% (95% CI: 84.8–96.5), and a specificity of 95.6% (95% CI: 89.1–98.8). Electrocardiogram misinterpretation was the most common error. University educated paramedics (n=44) were significantly better at clinical decision-making than in-house industry trained paramedics (n=37) (p=0.001), as were advanced life support paramedics (n=36) compared to paramedics of lesser practice levels (n=45) (p=0.006).

Conclusion 

Our New Zealand paramedic sample demonstrated an overall clinical decision-making capacity sufficient to support the introduction of a new autonomous paramedic PHT protocol. Recent changes in paramedic education toward university degree programs are supported.


Keywords


paramedic; thrombolytic therapy; myocardial infarction; electrocardiography; cardiovascular disease; myocardial reperfusion

Full Text:

PDF

References


Verheugt FWA, Gersh BJ, Armstrong PW. Aborted myocardial infarction: A new target for reperfusion therapy. Eur Heart J 2006;27:901–4.

McCaul M, Lourens A, Kredo T. Pre-hospital versus in-hospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;10:CD010191.

Kelly P. Thrombolysis in the pre-hospital setting: Importance of effective care pathways and protocols. Br J Cardiol 2003;10:395–8. Available at: http://bjcardio.co.uk/2003/09/thrombolysis-in-the-pre-hospital-setting/

Smith AM, Hardy PJ, Sandler DA, Cooke J. Paramedic decision making: Prehospital thrombolysis and beyond. Emerg Med J 2011;28:700–2.

Björklund E, Stenestrand U, Lindbäck J, Svensson L, Wallentin L, Lindahl B. Pre-hospital thrombolysis delivered by paramedics is associated with reduced time delay and mortality in ambulance-transported real-life patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2006;27:1146–52.

Morrison LJ, Verbeek PR, McDonald AC, Sawadsky BV,Cook, DJ. Mortality and prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Med Assoc 2000;283:2686–92.

Ranchord AM, Prasad S, Matsis P, Harding SA. Paramedic-administered prehospital thrombolysis is safe and reduces time to treatment. N Z Med J 2009;122:47–53.

Danchin N, Durand E, Blanchard D. Pre-hospital thrombolysis in perspective. Eur Heart J 2008;29:2835–42.

Keeling P, Hughes D, Price L, Shaw, S, Barton, A. Safety and feasibility of prehospital thrombolysis carried out by paramedics. BMJ 2003;327:27–8.

Davis P. Northland Pre-Hospital Thrombolysis Programme Annual Report, 2014. Whangarei, New Zealand: St John Ambulance Service; 2014.

Chamberlain D, Penny L, Fisher J. Pre-hospital thrombolysis: Combined submission from The Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liason Committee and The Ambulance Services Association. 2001. Available at: http://jrcalc.org.uk/events/annex02_0302.pdf

Pitt K. Prehospital selection of patients for thrombolysis by paramedics. Emerg Med J 2002;19:260–3.

Grijseels EWM, Bouten MJM, Lenderink T, et al. Pre-hospital thrombolytic therapy with either alteplase or streptokinase. Eur Heart J 1995;16:1833–8.

Massel D, Dawdy JA, Melendez LJ. Strict reliance on a computer algorithm or measurable ST segment criteria may lead to errors in thrombolytic therapy eligibility. Am Heart J 2000;140:221–6.

Ioannidis JP, Salem D, Chew PW, Lau J. Accuracy and clinical effect of out-of-hospital electrocardiography in the diagnosis of acute cardiac ischemia: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2001;37:461–70.

Feldman JA, Brinsfield K, Bernard S, White D, Maciejko T. Real-time paramedic compared with blinded physician identification of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Results of an observational study. Am J Emerg Med 2005;23:443–8.

Brady WJ, Perron AD, Martin ML, Beagle C, Aufderheide TP. Cause of ST segment abnormality in ED chest pain patients. Am J Emerg Med 2001;19:25–8.

Van de Werf F, Bax J, Betriu A, et al. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2008;29:2909–45.

Go AS, Barron HV. Bundle-branch block and in-hospital mortality in acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:690.

Davis DP, Graydon C, Stein R, et al. The positive predictive value of paramedic versus emergency physician interpretation of the prehospital 12-lead electrocardiogram. Prehosp Emerg Care 2007;11:399–402.

Lee CH, Van Gelder CM, Cone DC. Early cardiac catheterization laboratory activation by paramedics for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction on prehospital 12-Lead electrocardiograms. ibid. 2010;14:153–8.

Garvey JL, Monk L, Granger CB, et al. Rates of cardiac catheterization cancelation for ST-Segment elevation myocardial infarction after activation by emergency medical services or emergency physicians: Results from the North Carolina Catheterization Laboratory Activation Registry. Circulation 2012;125:308–13.

Clark CL, Berman AD, McHugh A, Roe EJ, Boura J, Swor RA. Hospital process intervals, not EMS time intervals, are the most important predictors of rapid reperfusion in EMS patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Prehosp Emerg Care 2012;16:115–20.

Brown JP, Mahmud E, Dunford JV, Ben-Yehuda O. Effect of prehospital 12-lead electrocardiogram on activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and door-to-balloon time in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:158–61.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


The Official Journal of Paramedics Australasia © 2017                           ISSN: 2202-7270