BMJ 1994;309:871-872 (1 October)

Letters

Prehospital thrombolysis Views of non-users ignored

EDITOR, - In his assimilation of general practitioners' views on prehospital thrombolysis John Rawles fails to look in detail at the subgroup from whom we are most likely to gain an interesting insight - namely, those general practitioners who took part in the Grampian region early anistreplase trial.1 Only 25 of the 87 doctors who took part in the study (a study which he suggests shows that the efficacy of thrombolysis is doubled when it is given before admission to hospital) identified themselves as current users of thrombolysis. Why did the remaining doctors stop using this treatment?

Rawles's main conclusions are that general practitioners feel the need to be better educated and value the input of local cardiologists in establishing protocols and management guidelines. I would have thought that those general practitioners who took part in the Grampian study had been sufficiently well educated and supported by local cardiologists. Why, . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Attitudes of general practitioners to prehospital thrombolysis
J Rawles
BMJ 1994 309: 379. [Abstract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Thomas, P D (1995). Emergency care in general practice. BMJ 310: 1268a-1268 [Full text]  
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ