Patients as well as relatives were insecure about AMI symptoms and how to act. All patients contacted a relative, who was more eager than the patient to seek help. Many preferred to go in their own car to the hospital, believing it to be faster than an ambulance. Information about AMI symptoms and recommended action should be given to the public and to AMI patients and their relatives.

No abstract

BackgroundDespite increased awareness of the importance of early treatment in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the delay from symptom onset to hospital arrival is still too long and rehospitalisations are frequent. Little is known about how health-related quality of life (HRQL) affects delay time and the frequency of readmissions.MethodWe used quality registers to investigate whether patients’ HRQL has any impact on delay time with a new AMI, and on the rate of readmissions during the first year. Patients with AMI <75 years, with HRQL assessed with EQ-5D at 1-year follow-up, and who thereafter had a new AMI registered, were evaluated for the correlation between HRQL and delay time (n=454). The association between HRQL and readmissions was evaluated among those who had an additional AMI and a new 1-year follow-up registration (n=216).ResultsPatients who reported poor total health status (EQ-VAS ≤50), compared to those who reported EQ-VAS 81–100, had tripled risk to delay ≥2 h from symptom onset to hospital arrival (adjusted OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.43 to 6.34). Patients scoring EQ-VAS ≤50 had also a higher risk of readmissions in the univariate analysis (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.71 to 5.53). However, the correlation did not remain significant after adjustment (OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 4.38). EQ-index was not independently associated with delay time or readmissions.ConclusionsAspects of total health status post-AMI were independently associated with delay time to hospital arrival in case of a new AMI. However, the influence of total health status on the risk of readmissions was less clear.

Background: Patients with acute myocardial infarction often have long decision times before seeking medical care. The decision time is influenced by knowledge of AMI-symptoms, psychological factors and the response of people near the patient to the symptoms. Aim: To investigate and compare the knowledge of AMI, intended actions in response to AMI-symptoms and attitudes toward seeking medical care of patients and the general public. Method: This was a multicentre study with descriptive and comparative design, using questionnaires as an instrument. The population consisted of AMI-patients and representatives of the general public. Results: There was good knowledge about typical AMI-symptoms among the participants. The majority thought an AMI always starts suddenly. Patients did not know more about the timedependency of treatment outcome than the general public. A greater proportion of the general public would contact an additional person before consulting medical professionals. Conclusions: Patients had no better knowledge about AMI than the general public, but would more commonly act appropriately in case of AMI-symptoms.

BackgroundInadequate volume control may be a main contributor to poor survival and high mortality in hemodialysis patients. Bioimpedance measurement has the potential to improve fluid management, but several dialysis centers lack an agreed fluid management policy, and the method has not yet been implemented. Our aim was to identify renal care professionals’ perceived barriers and facilitators for use of bioimpedance in clinical practice.MethodsQualitative data were collected through four focus group interviews with 24 renal care professionals: dieticians, nephrologists and nurses, recruited voluntarily from a nation-wide selection of hemodialysis centers, having access to a bioimpedance-device. The participants were connected to each other and a moderator via equipment for telemedicine and the sessions were recorded. The interviews were semi-structured, focusing on the participants’ perceptions of use of bioimpedance in clinical practice. Thematic content analysis was performed in consecutive steps, and data were extracted by employing an inductive, interactive, comparative process.ResultsSeveral barriers and facilitators to the use of bioimpedance in clinical practice were identified, and a multilevel approach to examining barriers and incentives for change was found to be applicable to the ideas and categories that arose from the data. The determinants were categorized on five levels, and the different themes of the levels illustrated with quotations from the focus groups participants.ConclusionsDeterminants for use of bioimpedance were identified on five levels: 1) the innovation itself, 2) the individual professional, 3) the patient, 4) the social context and 5) the organizational context. Barriers were identified in the areas of credibility, awareness, knowledge, self-efficacy, care processes, organizational structures and regulations. Facilitators were identified in the areas of the innovation’s attractiveness, advantages in practice, and collaboration. Motivation, team processes and organizational capacities appeared as both barriers and facilitators.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-018-0907-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.