As an a BSN, RN for over 20 years, primarily with cardiology and Trauma/ ED experience, I take issue with the “hysteria” r/t the premise that IS security and downtime issues are directly r/t an increase in 30 day morality acute myocardial infarction rates.
In the Vanderbilt study I see nothing about post MI care much less prior risk factors. There is no mention of the time of onset of s/s and the patient’s response to seeking emergency medical assistance.
As healthcare workers we all SHOULD know that an unquantified number of patients, particularly women, do not seek emergency medical attention for s/s of cardiac issues.
Within the Vanderbilt study I see nothing about post MI care or prior risk factors. Door to EKG time matters but one must consider what is the delay in patient response to s/s and seeking Emergency Medical Care. Nor is there mention of effective protocol if a patient presents with classic s/s.
It’s more of a protocol issue than an IS issue. Systems go down. That’s a given..the weak link is in the emergency protocol response not the fact there’s an IS issue.
If a patient presents with MI s/s and systems are down you move forward. CK/Troponin x3. Maybe an echo and straight to the Cath lab if necessary.
This study and the turmoil it has created is bogus.
The crux of the issue is payment. Typically you do an EKG to verify the patient is articulating true s/s. BS! ST depression or elevation should be beside the fact if the patient presents with s/s of an MI.
MD’s are not STUPID, give them some credit!! They know if their patient is in eminent risk and if they are worth their salt they won’t wait for an EKG.
This entire study is embellished to fuel a sort of hysteria.
Think about it..
The true issue is meeting the qualifications of reimbursement.
Utterly disappointed in such irresponsible journalism..well..so called journalism.
