Introducing systematic dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (telephone-CPR) in a non-Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System (AMPDS): Implementation process and costs

Dami, Fabrice; Fuchs, Vincent; Praz, Laurent; Vader, John‐Paul

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.025

Cited by 45 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For the critical outcome of cardiac arrest recognition, we identified very-low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision) from 1 cluster RCT, 12 as well as very-low-quality evidence from 26 non-RCTs comprising 8 before-after observational studies, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] 9 prospective single-arm observational studies, 13,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] 8 retrospective single-arm observational studies, [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and 1 case-control study. 11 A total of 17 420 patients were included in these 27 studies.…”

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 Agonal breaths were reported in approximately 30% of cases in 1 study, 13 which can make obtaining an accurate description of the patient's breathing pattern challenging for dispatchers. The presence of agonal breaths were mentioned as a factor negatively affecting cardiac arrest recognition in 10 studies, [13][14][15]18,22,23,25,33,35,37 with 1 study reporting that agonal breaths were present in 50% of nonidentified cardiac arrest calls. 18 Other terms reported in the studies that may help identify possible cardiac arrest cases include "dead," "is dead," "cold and stiff," "blue," "gray," or "pale."…”

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…37 There is evidence from 3 studies that failure to recognize cardiac arrest may be associated with failure to follow scripted protocols by omitting specified questions about consciousness and breathing. 23,24,26 …”

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of agonal breaths were mentioned as a factor negatively affecting cardiac arrest recognition in 10 studies, [13][14][15]18,22,23,25,33,35,37 with 1 study reporting that agonal breaths were present in 50% of nonidentified cardiac arrest calls.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Travers¹,

Perkins²,

Berg³

et al. 2015

Circulation

234

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This Part of the 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopul monary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) presents the consensus on science and treatment recommendations for adult basic life support (BLS) and automated external defibrillation (AED). After the publication of the 2010 CoSTR, the Adult BLS Task Force developed review questions in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format.1 This resulted in the generation of 36 PICO questions for systematic reviews. The task force discussed the topics and then voted to prioritize the most important questions to be tackled in 2015. From the pool of 36 questions, 14 were rated low priority and were deferred from this round of evidence evaluation. Two new questions were submitted by task force members, and 1 was submitted via the public portal. Two of these (BLS 856 and BLS 891) were taken forward for evidence review. The third question (368: ForeignBody Airway Obstruction) was deferred after a preliminary review of the evidence failed to identify compelling evidence that would alter the treatment recommendations made when the topic was last reviewed in 2005. 2 Each task force performed a systematic review using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.3 With the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library).Reviewers were unable to identify any relevant evidence for 3 questions (BLS 811, BLS 373, and BLS 348), and the evidence review was not completed in time for a further question (BLS 370). A revised PICO question was developed for the opioid question (BLS 891). The task force reviewed 23 PICO questions for the 2015 consensus on science and treatment recommendations, including BLS 811, BLS 373, and BLS 348. The PICO flow is summarized in Figure 1.Using the methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, 4 the reviewers for each question created a reconciled risk-of-bias assessment for each of the included studies, using state-of-the-art tools: Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 for studies of diagnostic accuracy, 6 and GRADE for observational studies that inform both therapy and prognosis questions.7 GRADE evidence profile tables 8 were then created to facilitate an evaluation of the evidence in support of each of the critical and important outcomes. Critical outcomes were defined as neurologically favorable outcome (level 9), survival (level 8), and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC; level 7). Given the heterogeneity of time points evaluated in the studies related to BLS/AED, time intervals were pooled across outcomes. For neurologic outcome and survival, we considered the outcomes at discharge,...

show abstract

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Travers¹,

Perkins²,

Berg³

et al. 2015

Circulation

234

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To improve bystander CPR rates, we recently implemented systematic telephonic instruction of bystanders in CPR by our dispatch center. 8 The aim of this study was to measure the acceptance rate of telephone CPR instruction by bystanders and to identify the reasons why bystanders may decline or fail to perform CPR. We use the term ''bystander'' to refer to anyone calling the dispatch center, whether or not they have a health care education or CPR training.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Bystanders Decline Telephone Cardiac Resuscitation Advice

Dami

Carron

Praz

et al. 2010

Academic Emergency Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate and reason for refusal of telephone-based cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instruction by bystanders after the implementation of the dispatch center's systematic telephone CPR protocol.Methods: Over a 15-month period the authors prospectively collected all case records from the emergency medical services (EMS) dispatch center when CPR had been proposed to the bystander calling in and recorded the reason for declining or not performing that the bystander spontaneously mentioned. All pediatric and adult traumatic and nontraumatic cases were included. Situations when resuscitation had been spontaneously initiated by bystanders were excluded.Results: During the study period, dispatchers proposed CPR on 264 occasions: 232 adult nontraumatic cases, 17 adult traumatic cases, and 15 pediatric (traumatic and nontraumatic) cases. The proposal was accepted in 163 cases (61.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 54.6% to 66.5%), and CPR was eventually performed in 134 cases (51%, 95% CI = 43.2% to 55.3%). In 35 of the cases where resuscitation was not carried out, the condition of the patient or conditions at the scene made this decision medically appropriate. Of the remaining 95 cases, 55 were due to physical limitations of the caller, and 33 were due to emotional distress. Conclusions:The telephone CPR acceptance rate of 62% in this study is comparable to those of other similar studies. Because bystanders' physical condition is one of the keys to success, the rate may not improve as the population ages.

show abstract

Aktuelle Empfehlungen zum Basic/Advanced Life Support

Fink

Schmid

Busch

2016

Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The revised guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation were implemented by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) in October 2015. There were few changes concerning basic and advanced life support; however, some issues were clarified compared to the ERC recommendations from 2010. The present paper summarizes the procedures of basic and advanced life support according to the current guidelines and highlights the updates of 2015. Furthermore, the article depicts future prospects of cardiopulmonary resuscitation that may improve outcome of patients after cardiac arrest in the future.

show abstract

Introducing systematic dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (telephone-CPR) in a non-Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System (AMPDS): Implementation process and costs

Cited by 45 publications

References 18 publications

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Why Bystanders Decline Telephone Cardiac Resuscitation Advice

Aktuelle Empfehlungen zum Basic/Advanced Life Support

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About