A Qualitative Analysis of Barriers to Evidence-Based Care in the Prehospital Management of Patients with Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome

Abstract

Objectives Prehospital electrocardiogram (ECG) and administration of aspirin are evidence-based strategies for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, emergency medical services (EMS) compliance in patients with suspected ACS varies widely. We sought to understand the barriers to prehospital ECG acquisition and aspirin administration for patients with suspected ACS. Methods In this qualitative study, we interviewed EMS clinicians at three geographically diverse United States (U.S.)-based EMS agencies. We interviewed practicing clinicians and quality and operations leaders at these agencies. Based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a grounded qualitative approach with open coding. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework and a constant comparison technique were used to identify and refine themes. Results Twenty-five paramedics and 20 additional agency personnel participated. Median age was 41 (IQR: 34–51) years and 13 (29%) were female. Themes were organized using SEIPS and longitudinally through four phases of an EMS call. During the pre-arrival phase, staffing challenges, training quality, and dispatch may anchor EMS clinicians on a diagnosis. During the diagnosis and treatment phase, safety and communication barriers may take priority over care delivery. Additionally, EMS clinicians must allocate assets (e.g. whether to send an advanced life support unit) and financial resources; veteran EMS clinicians identified their experience whereas newer clinicians cited their recent education when making these decisions. Also, diagnostic uncertainty due to increasing patient complexity and atypical presentations contributed to diagnostic errors. During the response and transport phase, the scope of practice limits the use and interpretation of the ECG, with clinicians reporting that liberal use of ECG led to more rapid decision-making. Finally, in the after phase, personnel reported the “psychologically taxing” nature of the job contributing to biases, bad habits, and burnout. Performance feedback was desired for personal development, though currently perceived as infrequent and punitive. Conclusions Multiple, interrelated themes underscored the complexities of delivering evidence-based care to prehospital patients with ACS. Education in ECG interpretation, resource allocation, bias, and enhancing feedback may serve as strategies to address the identified barriers.