Objective To construct an evaluation indicator system for the county-township-village integrated prevention, control and treatment capabilities of chest pain centers in county-level hospitals, providing a reference for improving China’s chest pain treatment network. Methods We determined the initial items of the indicator system based on evidence-based medicine, invited experts to conduct two rounds of inquiry using the Delphi method, discussed and revised the indicators, and determined the weights of each indicator based on the analytic hierarchy process. ResultsA total of 25 experts participated in the consultation. Their areas of expertise included nursing, clinical medicine, medical technology, health service management. The effective response rates of the two rounds of expert consultation questionnaires were 82.76% and 88.00%, respectively, with expert authority levels of 0.84 and 0.88, respectively. In the first round of expert consultation, Kendall coordination coefficient was 0.103 and χ2 value was 151.211 (P<0.001). The Kendall coordination coefficient for the second round was 0.132, with χ2 value of 199.648 (P<0.001). The final evaluation indicator system for the county-township-village integrated prevention, control and treatment capabilities of chest pain centers in county-level hospitals comprised 4 first-level indicators, 10 second-level indicators, and 54 third-level indicators. Conclusion The evaluation indicator system constructed in this study demonstrates scientific validity and reliability, laying a foundation for further validation and application.
Objective To search, evaluate and summarize the relevant evidence of the treatment and management of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) under the chest pain center mode by using the evidence-based medicine method, so as to provide references for optimizing the clinical pathway, improving the medical quality and improving the prognosis of patients. Methods Relevant evidence on the treatment and management of AMI patients in relevant databases and websites at home and abroad was retrieved, and the retrieval time limit was from the establishment of databases to January 1, 2025. The quality of the included literature was evaluated, and the evidence was extracted and summarized. Results A total of 15 articles were included, including 2 clinical decisions, 2 systematic reviews, 8 guidelines, and 3 expert consensuses. Finally, 23 pieces of best evidence were extracted, including the basic conditions of chest pain center, the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute chest pain, the integration of pre-hospital emergency system and hospital green channel, and training and education. Conclusions The best evidence for the treatment and management of AMI under the chest pain center mode can provide evidence-based basis for clinical practice. It is necessary to combine the situation of the chest pain center, fully consider the validity and feasibility of the evidence, and help the chest pain center improve the medical quality and improve the prognosis of patients in a standardized and scientific way.