|
|
| |
|
Investigating
the reasons for delay in hospital admission and treatment after
stroke
|
|
|
|
Funded
by:
|
|
South
Thames R&D 1999-2000
|
|
|
|
Study
team:
|
|
Ms
Sue Clegg
|
|
Dr
Pandora Pound
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Background: |
| It
is well documented that delays often occur between patients' initial
experience of stroke symptoms and medical help being sought. New therapies
for stroke need to be administered to patients within a narrow time
window. Other studies have documented the length of delays and the
points at which they occur, but little work has been done on exactly
why delays happen. |
|
| Setting:
|
| Inner
city London |
|
| Aims: |
|
1. to investigate
delay times and points of delay from symptom recognition through
to hospital arrival, diagnosis, CT/MRI scanning and treatment with
aspirin
|
| 2.
to understanding the reasons why patients often delay seeking medical
assistance |
|
| Design:
|
| 1.
Quantitative survey of all patients entered onto the South London
Stroke Register (SLSR) |
| 2.
Qualitative interviews with stroke patients about events in the early
stages of stroke |
|
| Results: |
| The
prospective sample comprised patients entered onto the SLSR and hospitalised
in St. Thomas' Hospital. Semi-structured interviews were carried out
with 20 patients and/or witnesses to the acute stages of stroke. Analysis
focussed on the meanings patients and witnesses attributed to symptoms. |
|
| Three
key findings arose from the qualitative part of the study: |
- Patients
for whom first symptom of stroke was collapse did not undertake
a decision process
- Patients
who did not collapse attempted to rationalise their symptoms and
to understand them in terms of previous knowledge and experience;
and
- Delays occurred
whilst the rationalisation process was undertaken: medical help
was sought when symptoms persisted for long periods (up to 60
hours, mean 17.7 hours), or worsened, or when friends/family persuaded
patients that their symptoms required medical attention
|
| Conclusion: |
| Literature
on symptom recognition, intended for people at risk of stroke, often
emphasises 'sudden onset' of symptoms. However, for many people in
this study such terminology would be confusing. In lay terms onset
was understood to be slow, demonstrated by patients' rationalisation
of their situations. Future health campaigns designed to encourage
early medical intervention for stroke need to take account of lay
meanings and understanding of symptoms. Further analysis will be undertaken. |
| |
|
|