Development of acute chest pain services in the UK

被引:23
作者
Cross, Elizabeth
How, Steven
Goodacre, Steve
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Med Care Res Unit, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Sheffield Teaching Hosp, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
关键词
D O I
10.1136/emj.2006.043224
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100602 [中西医结合临床];
摘要
Background: In 2001, a survey of emergency departments in the UK showed wide variation in the management of acute undifferentiated chest pain. There has since been substantial development of chest pain services and research into chest pain units (CPUs). Aim: To determine whether practice had changed in 2006. Methods: All emergency departments in the UK were surveyed by postal questionnaire to the lead clinician or first named consultant. Results: Responses were received from 192 of 253 (76%) departments. 25 (10%) stated they had a CPU, although 8 (32%) of these were set up in trials. Many CPUs provided care that was similar to that provided by hospitals without a CPU, with 76% using 10-12 h troponin and 29% only providing delayed access to exercise tolerance testing (up to 2-3 weeks after attendance). Over all departments, the proportion with access to exercise testing had more than doubled between 2001 and 2006, from 21% to 49% (94/190), although only a minority (16%) were able to provide this immediately or within the next working day. Use of departmental guidelines for patients with chest pain had increased from 42% to 72% of departments. Use of troponins increased from 52% to 96%, whereas use of creatine kinase MB decreased from 54% to 31% of departments. Availability of short-stay facilities had more than doubled from 21% to 59%. Conclusions: Formal development of CPUs has been limited and mostly restricted to trials. However, there has been substantial informal and ad hoc development of acute chest pain services. Development of chest pain services in the UK is progressing in a disorganised way.
引用
收藏
页码:100 / 102
页数:3
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]
Prospective audit of incidence of prognostically important myocardial damage in patients discharged from emergency department [J].
Collinson, PO ;
Premachandram, S ;
Hashemi, K .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7251) :1702-1704
[2]
Department of Health, 2000, NAT SERV FRAM COR HE
[3]
*ESCAPE TRIAL, ISRCTN55318418 ESCAP
[4]
The health care burden of acute chest pain [J].
Goodacre, S ;
Cross, E ;
Arnold, J ;
Angelini, K ;
Capewell, S ;
Nicholl, J .
HEART, 2005, 91 (02) :229-230
[5]
Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care [J].
Goodacre, S ;
Nicholl, J ;
Dixon, S ;
Cross, E ;
Angelini, K ;
Arnold, J ;
Revill, S ;
Locker, T ;
Capewell, SJ ;
Quinney, D ;
Campbell, S ;
Morris, F .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2004, 328 (7434) :254-257
[6]
GOODACRE S, 2002, EMERG MED J, V18, P6
[7]
GOODACRE S, 2003, BR J CARDIOL, V10, P50
[8]
Is it possible to exclude a diagnosis of myocardial damage within six hours of admission to an emergency department? Diagnostic cohort study [J].
Herren, KR ;
Mackway-Jones, K ;
Richards, CR ;
Seneviratne, CJ ;
France, MW ;
Cotter, L .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7309) :372-374
[9]
ROMEO: a rapid rule out strategy for low risk chest pain. Does it work in a UK emergency department? [J].
Taylor, C ;
Forrest-Hay, A ;
Meek, S .
EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2002, 19 (05) :395-399