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. 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
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. 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Authors: Lauren Hampton; Peter Brindley; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Jessica McKee; Julian Regehr; Douglas Martin; Anthony LaPorta; Jason Park; Ashley Vergis; Lawrence Gillman Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: J C Nest; D Steinbrunner; M Karger; M Hiltl; F von Kaufmann; K-G Kanz; U Kreimeier Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Simon Regard; Django Rosa; Mélanie Suppan; Chiara Giangaspero; Robert Larribau; Marc Niquille; François Sarasin; Laurent Suppan Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2020-11-30
Authors: Andrew Fu Wah Ho; Nurun Nisa Amatullah De Souza; Audrey L Blewer; Win Wah; Nur Shahidah; Alexander Elgin White; Yih Yng Ng; Desmond Renhao Mao; Nausheen Doctor; Han Nee Gan; Michael Yih Chong Chia; Benjamin Sieu-Hon Leong; Si Oon Cheah; Lai Peng Tham; Marcus Eng Hock Ong Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 5.501