| 1. |
- Rauhala, A S, et al.
(författare)
-
Which factors are associated with COVID-19 infection incidence in care services for older people in Nordic countries? : A cross-sectional survey
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. - : SAGE Publications. - 1403-4948 .- 1651-1905.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: To investigate the differences between Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway regarding residential/home care units' and frontline managers' background factors, the resources allocated and measures taken during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether and how these differences were associated with COVID-19 among older people in residential/home units.Methods: Register- and survey-based data. Responses from managers in municipal and private residential/home units. Number of municipal COVID-19 cases from national registries. Multilevel logistic multivariate regression analysis with presence of COVID-19 among older people in residential/home units as the outcome variable.Results: The proportions of residential/home units with client COVID-19 cases, mid-March-April 2020 were Denmark 22.7%, Finland 9.0%, Norway 9.7% and Sweden 38.8%, most cases found in clusters. The proportions were similar among employees. Client likelihood of having COVID-19 was six-fold higher if the employees had COVID-19. Mean client cases per residential/home unit were Denmark 0.78, Finland 0.46, Norway 0.22 and Sweden 1.23. For the same municipal infection incidence class, Sweden's mean client infection levels were three-fold those of other countries. The regression analysis variables country, municipal COVID-19 incidence proportion, and care type were associated with client cases at p <= .001. Compared with Denmark, the odds ratios (ORs) for Sweden, Norway and Finland were 1.86, 0.41 and 0.35 respectively. The variable difficulties in preventive testing had an OR of 1.56, p <= .05.Conclusions: Municipal COVID-19 incidence, employee cases, and the lack of testing resources somewhat explained the confirmed COVID-19 cases among older people in residential/home units. A two- to five-fold unexplained inter-country difference in ORs in the multivariate analyses was notable. The level of protection of vulnerable older clients in municipal and private residential/home units differed between the included countries.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Zijlstra, Jolande A, et al.
(författare)
-
Different defibrillation strategies in survivors after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Heart. - : BMJ. - 1355-6037 .- 1468-201X. ; 104:23, s. 1929-1936
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In the last decade, there has been a rapid increase in the dissemination of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for prehospital defibrillation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of this study was to study the association between different defibrillation strategies on survival rates over time in Copenhagen, Stockholm, Western Sweden and Amsterdam, and the hypothesis was that non-EMS defibrillation increased over time and was associated with increased survival.METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of four prospectively collected cohorts of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients between 2008 and 2013. Emergency medical service (EMS)-witnessed arrests were excluded.RESULTS: A total of 22 453 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with known survival status were identified, of whom 2957 (13%) survived at least 30 days postresuscitation. Of all survivors with a known defibrillation status, 2289 (81%) were defibrillated, 1349 (59%) were defibrillated by EMS, 454 (20%) were defibrillated by a first responder AED and 429 (19%) were defibrillated by an onsite AED and 57 (2%) were unknown. The percentage of survivors defibrillated by first responder AEDs (from 13% in 2008 to 26% in 2013, p<0.001 for trend) and onsite AEDs (from 14% in 2008 to 30% in 2013, p<0.001 for trend) increased. The increased use of these non-EMS AEDs was associated with the increase in survival rate of patients with a shockable initial rhythm.CONCLUSION: Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are increasingly defibrillated by non-EMS AEDs. This increase is primarily due to a large increase in the use of onsite AEDs as well as an increase in first-responder defibrillation over time. Non-EMS defibrillation accounted for at least part of the increase in survival rate of patients with a shockable initial rhythm.
|
|
