Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Nursing Times Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Holland, E.
Right arrow Articles by Foxcroft, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Is nurse-led thrombolysis clinically safe, beneficial and acceptable?

Emma Holland, RGN

Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth

David Foxcroft, RGN, PhD

School of Health Care, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, foxcroft{at}bigfoot.com

This study examined the sensitivity and specificity of coronary care unit (CCU) nurses' ability to diagnose acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and to make an independent clinical decision about thrombolysis. The effectiveness of this simulated nurse-led thrombolysis was compared with the sensitivity and specificity of subsequent senior house officer diagnosis and actual treatment. A blinded, retrospective gold standard was provided by consultant cardiologists. Predictions were that: nurse-led thrombolysis would be no worse than current practice; it would lead to a significant time-saving in CCU door-to-needle times; CCU nurses would accept this potential development in their role. The first and second predictions were upheld. Regarding the third prediction, most nurses felt confident about diagnosing AMI and administering thrombolytics, but only half of those who completed an anonymous questionnaire said that nurse-led thrombolysis should be part of the nursing role. The comments against nurse-led thrombolysis related to extra responsibility, legal cover, professional and organisational support and backup, and financial reward. The results of this simulation study suggest that, providing these concerns are addressed, nurse-led thrombolysis may be clinically safe, beneficial and acceptable to nurses.

Key Words: Thrombolysis • Decision-making • Coronary care • Extended role

Nursing Times Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, 227-234 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/136140960000500311
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 Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?