| 1. |
- Maurer, H, et al.
(författare)
-
When is a bystander not a bystander any more? A European Survey.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: There is international variation in the rates of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). 'Bystander CPR' is defined in the Utstein definitions, however, differences in interpretation may contribute to the variation reported. The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to understand how the term 'bystander CPR' is interpreted in Emergency Medical Service (EMS) across Europe, and to contribute to a better definition of 'bystander' for future reference.METHODS: During analysis of the EuReCa ONE study, uncertainty about the definition of a 'bystander' emerged. Sixty scenarios were developed, addressing the interpretation of 'bystander CPR'. An electronic version of the survey was sent to 27 EuReCa National Coordinators, who distributed it to EMS representatives in their countries. Results were descriptively analysed.RESULTS: 362 questionnaires were received from 23 countries. In scenarios where a layperson arrived on scene by chance and provided CPR, up to 95% of the participants agreed that 'bystander CPR' had been performed. In scenarios that included community response systems, firefighters and/or police personnel, the percentage of agreement that 'bystander CPR' had been performed ranged widely from 16% to 91%. Even in scenarios that explicitly matched examples provided in the Utstein template there was disagreement on the definition.CONCLUSION: In this survey, the interpretation of 'bystander CPR' varied, particularly when community response systems including laypersons, firefighters, and/or police personnel were involved. It is suggested that the definition of 'bystander CPR' should be revised to reflect changes in treatment of OHCA, and that CPR before arrival of EMS is more accurately described.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ringh, M, et al.
(författare)
-
The challenges and possibilities of public access defibrillation.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Internal Medicine. - : Wiley. - 0954-6820 .- 1365-2796. ; 283:3, s. 238-256
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major health problem that affects approximately four hundred and thousand patients annually in the United States alone. It is a major challenge for the emergency medical system as decreased survival rates are directly proportional to the time delay from collapse to defibrillation. Historically, defibrillation has only been performed by physicians and in-hospital. With the development of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), rapid defibrillation by nonmedical professionals and subsequently by trained or untrained lay bystanders has become possible. Much hope has been put to the concept of Public Access Defibrillation with a massive dissemination of public available AEDs throughout most Western countries. Accordingly, current guidelines recommend that AEDs should be deployed in places with a high likelihood of OHCA. Despite these efforts, AED use is in most settings anecdotal with little effect on overall OHCA survival. The major reasons for low use of public AEDs are that most OHCAs take place outside high incidence sites of cardiac arrest and that most OHCAs take place in residential settings, currently defined as not suitable for Public Access Defibrillation. However, the use of new technology for identification and recruitment of lay bystanders and nearby AEDs to the scene of the cardiac arrest as well as new methods for strategic AED placement redefines and challenges the current concept and definitions of Public Access Defibrillation. Existing evidence of Public Access Defibrillation and knowledge gaps and future directions to improve outcomes for OHCA are discussed. In addition, a new definition of the different levels of Public Access Defibrillation is offered as well as new strategies for increasing AED use in the society.
|
|
