As far as I am aware the big thrombolysis trials showed better outcomes only
measured to a minimum time of one hour, and anything less has not been
proved by further trials but assumed to be a 'good thing' by extrapolation
(or guesswork by any other name!).Anyway, whilst NOT trying to be pedantic
its the pain to needle time that counts and the Lord only knows what we can
do about that-get the fat and unfit to call the ambo's quicker I suppose!
Richard Hartopp
A/E SpR (still all shiny and new !)
Mayday Hospital and Dormitory Unit
Sunny Croydon
Happy Christmas!
>From: Danny McGeehan <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The list will be of relevance to all trainees including
> undergraduates and <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Door to needle times again
>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 16:56:35 -0000
>
>Colleagues
>We are at present striving to acheive door to needle times of under 20 mins
>and I understand that in 2 years it will be mandatory throughout the UK.
>However being the cynic that I am, I understand that it is vital to acheive
>the magical figure of 20mins.
>Is there any medical evidence that one can cite that shows that survival
>and
>morbidity are improved by door to needle times of 20 mins as opposed to 25
>or even 60 mins. If there is i would be greatful for it , although I
>suspect it is a sinister plot to knock off the A & E Consultants.
>Has anyone out there got any pathways and proformata that I could use as
>well as any EBM.
>My own feelings are that resources would be better channeled into
>preventative measures, the population are getting fatter and doing less
>exercise.
>Sorry to send this message out on Xmas eve but like most A & E consultants
>it is a busy time of the year.
>Danny McGeehan
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|