Background The role of cardiac arrest centers (CACs) in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest care systems is continuously evolving. Interpretation of existing literature is limited by heterogeneity in CAC characteristics and types of patients transported to CACs. This study assesses the impact of CACs on survival in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest according to varying definitions of CAC and prespecified subgroups. Methods and Results Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 9, 2021 for relevant studies. Centers were considered CACs if self‐declared by study authors and capable of relevant interventions. Main outcomes were survival and neurologically favorable survival at hospital discharge or 30 days. Meta‐analyses were performed for adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and crude odds ratios. Thirty‐six studies were analyzed. Survival with favorable neurological outcome significantly improved with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.52–2.26]), even when including high‐volume centers (aOR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.18–1.91]) or including improved‐care centers (aOR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.75–2.59]) as CACs. Survival significantly increased with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.59–2.32]), even when including high‐volume centers (aOR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38–2.18]) or when including improved‐care centers (aOR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.71–2.26]) as CACs. The treatment effect was more pronounced among patients with shockable rhythm ( P =0.006) and without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation ( P =0.005). Conclusions were robust to sensitivity analyses, with no publication bias detected. Conclusions Care at CACs was associated with improved survival and neurological outcomes for patients with nontraumatic out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest regardless of varying CAC definitions. Patients with shockable rhythms and those without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation benefited more from CACs. Evidence for bypassing hospitals or interhospital transfer remains inconclusive.

BackgroundForearm fractures in children often require closed reduction in the emergency setting. The choice of anaesthesia influences the degree of pain relief, which determines the success of reduction. Main methods of anaesthesia include procedural sedation and analgesia, haematoma block, intravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA) and regional nerve blocks. However, their comparative effectiveness is unclear. This study aims to synthesise peer-reviewed evidence and identify the most effective, in terms of pain reduction, and safest anaesthetic method.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 15 June 2021. Randomised controlled trials comparing anaesthetic methods for the closed reduction of paediatric forearm fractures in the emergency setting were included. Two reviewers independently screened, collected data and assessed the risk of bias for the selected outcomes. The primary outcome was pain during reduction. Secondary outcomes included pain after reduction, adverse effects, satisfaction, adequacy of sedation/anaesthesia, success of reduction and resource use.Results1288 records were screened and 9 trials, which studied 936 patients in total, were included. Four trials compared the main methods of anaesthesia. Within the same method of anaesthesia, one compared administrative routes, one compared procedural techniques, one compared different drugs, one compared the use of adjuncts and one compared different doses of the same drug. One study found better pain outcomes with infraclavicular blocks compared with procedural sedation and analgesia. Lidocaine was superior in analgesic effect to prilocaine in IVRA in one study. One study found lower pain scores with moderate-dose than low-dose lidocaine in IVRA.ConclusionFew randomised controlled trials compared anaesthetic methods in the closed reduction of paediatric forearm fractures. High heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Overall, current data are insufficient to guide the choice of anaesthetic method in emergency settings. More adequately powered trials, conducted using standardised methods, are required.

Key Points Question Is treatment at a high-volume center associated with improved survival and neurological outcomes among adult patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)? Findings In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 articles involving 82 769 patients with OHCA, survival to discharge or 30 days improved with treatment at a high-volume center; there was no association between center volume and good neurological outcomes at 30 days or at hospital discharge. Meaning These findings suggest that treatment at a high-volume center may improve survival but not neurological outcomes in patients with OHCA; more studies evaluating the relative importance of center volume compared with other variables associated with survival outcomes in these patients are required.

Summary Access to appropriate healthcare among disadvantaged populations in countries with universal healthcare requires a critical understanding of the relationships between poverty, social exclusion and health in the local context. The qualitative study explored the experiences of healthcare utilization in an inner-city impoverished community living in slum conditions in Hong Kong. Interviews with 40 slum residents in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the city explored the following domains: experience and perceptions of the community, housing conditions, informal social capital and support system, interactions with community workers, and experiences in utilizing social and healthcare services. Framework analysis was conducted to identify local themes under the model of healthcare utilization: approachability, acceptability, availability and accommodation, affordability and appropriateness. Despite the subsidized public healthcare system, multiple barriers were identified. Low literacy of healthcare systems was prevalent. Specifically, structural barriers relating mainly to the availability, accommodation and affordability of health services were salient to impede access to healthcare. The barriers related to healthcare providers primarily stemmed from the interactions of healthcare providers, perceived stigma and the lack of patient-centred care. In addition, poverty-related sociocultural norms and personal beliefs of healthcare were found to be significant barriers to healthcare access. Despite the well-established subsidized public healthcare system, healthcare inequity was evident. Lack of quality healthcare access needs to be addressed by providing social and educational resources that facilitate collective efficacy for healthcare, community engagement from public sectors and person-centred care with healthcare providers.

No abstract