Door-to-Needle Time in Myocardial Infarction: Small Steps, Huge Dividends

A team without a name: emergency medicine recognition and its impact on working conditions and well-being

Emergency medicine (EM) has evolved significantly over the past 50 years, transitioning from a focus on acute injuries and illnesses to include primary and specialty care, disaster response, and social issues. To date, nearly 60 countries have officially recognized EM as a medical specialty. However, growing patient demands, healthcare staff shortages, and an aging population have strained emergency departments, worsening working conditions for EM professionals and compromising patient care. To address these challenges, formal recognition of EM as a specialty is crucial.As a specialty, EM offers significant benefits. It improves patient outcomes by ensuring structured, standardized training that equips specialists with the skills to manage acute conditions such as trauma, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Countries with recognized EM specialties have reported reduced morbidity and mortality and enhanced healthcare resilience during crises like pandemics and mass casualty events. Additionally, professional recognition aids in recruitment, retention, and reducing burnout among EM practitioners by establishing clear career pathways. Furthermore, it ensures specific paraclinical training in areas such as patient flow, and it strengthens healthcare systems. However, despite these benefits, challenges remain. Resource diversion from primary care, increased healthcare costs, and the initial investment required for training programs are potential drawbacks to EM specialty recognition. Achieving EM recognition will require a strategic collaborative approach, focusing on education, professional support, and collaboration across healthcare sectors.

Strengthening emergency care systems to improve patient care for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at a high-volume tertiary care centre in India

Background

ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a highly time-sensitive and life-threatening condition. Early recognition and timely management are challenging in a busy emergency department (ED), especially in low/middle-income countries where emergency systems are often fragmented. The aim of our quality improvement (QI) project was to increase the percentage of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with door to balloon (D2B) time of <90 min by 30% over 12 months.

Methods

As part of the first step in QI, baseline data were collected at different points in the process of care. Using process maps and fishbone analysis, delays in patient registration, ECG and communication with cardiology were identified as some bottlenecks, and change ideas were tested using plan–do–study–act cycles using point-of-care QI methodology. The majority of the change ideas focused on interventions in the ED like strengthening triage, training frontline staff, early diagnosis and quick transportation of patients.

Results

During the baseline phase, 22.22% of patients were found to have a D2B time of <90 min. We achieved an increase of 47.78% in patients receiving PCI within 90 min and hence increased to 70% at the end of the intervention phase. Data collected for 4 months after the intervention phase were found to have sustained the effort.

Conclusion

Significant improvement in the door to reperfusion time resulted from a meticulous assessment of emergency care processes by drawing process flow chart and implementation of change ideas like introduction of fast-track policy for patients with chest pain, reducing staff turnover in the triage area, formal training of staff, continuous engagement with cardiology team and by interchanging of processes which led to a reduction in time to ECG.