Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), an emerging virus, has caused a global pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has led to high hospitalization rates worldwide. Little is known about the occurrence of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and high mortality rates have been proposed. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, characteristics and outcome of IHCA during the pandemic in comparison to an earlier period. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of data prospectively recorded during 3-month-periods 2019 and 2020 at the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). All consecutive adult patients with IHCA were included. Clinical parameters, neurological outcomes and organ failure/support were assessed. Results During the study period hospital admissions declined from 18,262 (2019) to 13,994 (2020) (− 23%). The IHCA incidence increased from 4.6 (2019: 84 IHCA cases) to 6.6 (2020: 93 IHCA cases)/1000 hospital admissions. Median stay before IHCA was 4 (1–9) days. Demographic characteristics were comparable in both periods. IHCA location shifted towards the ICU (56% vs 37%, p < 0.01); shockable rhythm (VT/VF) (18% vs 29%, p = 0.05) and defibrillation were more frequent in the pandemic period (20% vs 35%, p < 0.05). Resuscitation times, rates of ROSC and post-CA characteristics were comparable in both periods. The severity of illness (SAPS II/SOFA), frequency of mechanical ventilation and frequency of vasopressor therapy after IHCA were higher during the 2020 period. Overall, 43 patients (12 with & 31 without COVID-19), presented with respiratory failure at the time of IHCA. The Horowitz index and resuscitation time were significantly lower in patients with COVID-19 (each p < 0.01). Favourable outcomes were observed in 42 and 10% of patients with and without COVID-19-related respiratory failure, respectively. Conclusion Hospital admissions declined during the pandemic, but a higher incidence of IHCA was observed. IHCA in patients with COVID-19 was a common finding. Compared to patients with non-COVID-19-related respiratory failure, the outcome was improved.
Introduction The aim of our study was to investigate challenges faced by emergency physicians (EPs) who provide prehospital emergency care to patients with advanced incurable diseases and family caregivers in their familiar home environment. Methods Qualitative study using semistructured interviews with open-ended questions to collect data from 24 EPs. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results We identified nine categories of challenges: structural conditions of prehospital emergency care, medical documentation and orders, finding optimal patient-centered therapy, uncertainty about legal consequences, challenges at the individual (EP) level, challenges at the emergency team level, family caregiver's emotions, coping and understanding of patient's illness, patient's wishes, coping and understanding of patient's illness, and social, cultural, and religious background of patients and families. EPs strengthened that the integrations of specialized prehospital palliative care services improved emergency care by providing resources to patients and family caregivers, enhancing the quality and availability of medical documentation and accessibility of aftercare in emergencies. Areas of improvement that were identified were to promote emergency physicians' knowledge and skills in palliative care, communication, and family caregiver support by education and training. Furthermore, structures for better care on-site, thorough medical documentation, and specialized palliative care emergency facilities in hospital and prehospital care were requested. Conclusion Prehospital emergency care in patients with advanced incurable diseases in their familiar home environment may be improved by training EPs in palliative care, communication, and caregiver support competences. Results underline the importance of collaborative specialized palliative care and prehospital emergency care.
Background Virtual reality is an innovative technology for medical education associated with high empirical realism. Therefore, this study compares a conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training with a Virtual Reality (VR) training aiming to demonstrate: (a) non-inferiority of the VR intervention in respect of no flow time and (b) superiority in respect of subjective learning gain. Methods In this controlled randomized study first year, undergraduate students were allocated in the intervention group and the control group. Fifty-six participants were randomized to the intervention group and 104 participants to the control group. The intervention group received an individual 35-min VR Basic Life Support (BLS) course and a basic skill training. The control group took part in a “classic” BLS-course with a seminar and a basic skill training. The groups were compared in respect of no flow time in a final 3-min BLS examination (primary outcome) and their learning gain (secondary outcome) assessed with a comparative self-assessment (CSA) using a questionnaire at the beginning and the end of the course. Data analysis was performed with a general linear fixed effects model. Results The no flow time was significantly shorter in the control group (Mean values: control group 82 s vs. intervention group 93 s; p = 0.000). In the CSA participants of the intervention group had a higher learning gain in 6 out of 11 items of the questionnaire (p < 0.05). Conclusion A “classic” BLS-course with a seminar and training seems superior to VR in teaching technical skills. However, overall learning gain was higher with VR. Future BLS course-formats should consider the integration of VR technique into the classic CPR training or vice versa, to use the advantage of both teaching techniques.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.