Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Emerg Med. 2014 Apr;46(4):495-506. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.08.114. Epub 2014 Jan 8.

A randomized controlled trial to reduce prehospital delay time in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Author information

1
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
2
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.
3
College of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The literature suggests that people delay too long prior to attending emergency departments with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) symptoms. This delay is referred to as prehospital delay. Patient decision delay contributes most significantly to prehospital delay.

OBJECTIVES:

Using a randomized controlled trial, we tested an educational intervention to reduce patient prehospital delay in ACS and promote appropriate responses to symptoms.

METHODS:

Eligible patients who were admitted across five emergency departments (EDs) in Dublin were recruited to the study (n = 1944; control: 972, intervention: 972).

RESULTS:

Median baseline prehospital delay times did not differ significantly between the groups at baseline (Mann-Whitney U, p = 0.34) (CONTROL: 4.28 h, 25(th) percentile = 1.71, 75(th) percentile = 17.37; Intervention 3.96 h, 25(th) percentile = 1.53, 75(th) percentile = 18.51). Both groups received usual in-hospital care. In addition, patients randomized to the intervention group received a 40-min individualized education session using motivational techniques. This was reinforced 1 month later by telephone. Of the 1944, 314 (16.2%) were readmitted with ACS symptoms: 177 (18.2%) and 137 (14.1%) of the intervention and control groups, respectively. Prehospital delay times were again measured. Median delay time was significantly lower in the intervention compared to the control group (1.7 h vs. 7.1 h; p ≤ 0.001). Appropriately, those in the intervention group reported their symptoms more promptly to another person (p = 0.01) and fewer consulted a general practitioner (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in ambulance use (p = 0.51) or nitrate use (p = 0.06) between the groups.

CONCLUSION:

It is possible to reduce prehospital delay time in ACS, but the need for renewed emphasis on ambulance use is important.

KEYWORDS:

acute coronary syndrome; behavioral change; educational intervention; prehospital delay time; randomized controlled trial

PMID:
24411656
DOI:
10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.08.114
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center