4.1 Article

Interventions to reduce emergency department door-to- electrocardiogram times: A systematic review

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 607-617

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/cem.2019.342

关键词

Electrocardiogram; emergency department; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We sought to identify emergency department interventions that lead to improvement in door-to-electrocardiogram (ECG) times for adults presenting with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome. Methods: Two reviewers searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to April 2018 for studies in adult emergency departments with an identifiable intervention to reduce median door-to-ECG times when compared with the institution's baseline. Quality was assessed using the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set critical appraisal tool. The primary outcome was the absolute median reduction in door-to-ECG times as calculated by the difference between the post-intervention time and pre-intervention time. Results: Two reviewers identified 809 unique articles, yielding 11 before-after quality improvement studies that met eligibility criteria (N = 15,622 patients). The majority of studies (10/11) reported bundled interventions, and most (10/11) showed statistical improvement in door-to-ECG times. The most common interventions were having a dedicated ECG machine and technician in triage (5/11); improved triage education (4/11); improved triage disposition (2/11); and data feedback mechanisms (2/11). Conclusions: There are multiple interventions that show potential for reducing emergency department door-to-ECG times. Effective bundled interventions include having a dedicated ECG technician, triage education, and better triage disposition. These changes can help institutions attain best practice guidelines. Emergency departments must first understand their local context before adopting any single or group of interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据