PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8536550

Guidelines for general practitioners administering thrombolytics.

J Rawles
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) recognises no boundaries, and the patient's greatest need occurs at the interface between primary care and hospital system. Ideally, the general practitioner, if summoned, should be able to provide resuscitation, analgesia with opiates, and thrombolytic therapy. Thrombolytics should certainly be given to eligible patients by the general practitioner if an hour could be saved by so doing. Optimising the risk-benefit ratio for thrombolytic therapy given in the community is a challenge to clinical judgement. Experience with this potent treatment is best obtained under a degree of supervision, which could take the form of an audit of the prehospital management of suspected AMI. With prehospital administration of thrombolytic therapy at the first opportunity, the chances of saving a life are better than 1 in 10, while the excess risk of a disabling stroke is about 1 in 1000.

Explore related subjects

Family PracticeFibrinolytic AgentsHumansMyocardial InfarctionThrombolytic TherapyComparative StudyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Rawles. 1995. Guidelines for general practitioners administering thrombolytics.. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199550040-00004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1996

Doctors' retainer scheme in Scotland: time for change?

OBJECTIVES: To describe the present doctors' retainer scheme in Scotland and ascertain the need for change. DESIGN: Semistructured postal questionnaires to current and past members of the doctors' retainer scheme and general practitioner employers. SETTING: Scotland, October to December 1994. SUBJECTS: 152/160 current and 104/124 former members responded together with 101/118 general practitioner employers. RESULTS: 93% of members currently working in general practice were either vocationally trained or had previously worked as principals. 84% of current members held postgraduate qualifications. 73% of former members had left the scheme within 4 years and 72% of current members had been with the scheme for 4 years or less. 66% of current members said that the scheme prevented them from leaving medicine. Both members and employers were dissatisfied with the current limit of two working sessions per week, 77% of employers wanting it increased. 61% of current members would not have joined the scheme if suitable part time work had been available and 46% of those would have preferred to work flexibly, up to 5 sessions per week. 52% of members do not receive BMA rates of pay and, of those, 46% work more than 3.5 hours per session. CONCLUSION: The scheme appears to be appreciated and would be more so if inconsistencies in pay and conditions were addressed. An increase in the permitted number of weekly sessions would enable these highly qualified doctors to maintain their skills and confidence.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1996

General practice postal surveys: a questionnaire too far?

A primary care led NHS, driven by evidence based practice, needs to build on a firm foundation of research in primary care. As researchers are making increasing use of questionnaire surveys to assess general practitioners' views and attitudes, so response rates to questionnaire surveys among general practitioners are dropping. The reasons include lack of perceived relevance of the research and lack of information and feedback about it, and researchers need to be more aware of the realities of everyday practice. Approaches that might reverse this trend include monitoring all research activities going on in an area to ensure that practices are not overused, giving general practitioners incentives to participate, and improving the relevance of research and the quality of questionnaires.

Family Practice↗