>Thanks for this. I recently had a chat with Ian Pearse from Physio and he
>said that some ambulance services are now undetaking telemetry 12 lead
>ecg's. I realise that the Americans have been doing it for donkeys years but
>unaware that they were doing so without evidence to back up their actions.
>Suprising really.
>The ramifications of what you have stated may alter the way in which we look
>at 12 lead ecg's and the proposed thrombolytic fast track system that some
>areas wish to put in place. I believe that Mark Whitbread has been doing
>just this for a couple of years now down in Tower Hamlets.
>If you don't mind I'll forward your e-mail to interested parties - I'll wait
>until you've given the OK before I send it though.
>
No problem. It is publicly available info which should be widely known. I am sure that the
only real worry is when ITU equipment is being carried during a transfer. I have not seen any
work on the effects of the GPS systems that many ambulances are now having fitted (I would
suggest that an ambulance service would need to ask the Medical Devices Agency before fitting
any equipment that might cause interference).
In Tower Hamlets we do not transmit the ECGs! It is much better to train the paramedics to
recognise the ECG criteria for thrombolysis than to transmit an ECG. Transmitting an ECG takes
time, needs technology, and needs a person at the other end of the line to interpret it.
After a 2 day training course (tested 12 months later) paramedics have a comparable accuracy
to A&E SHOs in spotting criteria for thrombolysis. If a radio message is transmitted ahead to
enable a senior doctor to be present when the patient arrives thrombolysis is reliably
achieved about 20 minutes afer arrival. This is an area in which I think that training the
paramedics is better than introducing new technology.
Tim.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|