Steven C Brooks1, Graydon Simmons2, Heather Worthington2, Bentley J Bobrow3, Laurie J Morrison4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University at Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Rescu, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: brookss1@kgh.kari.net. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University at Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 3. Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Centre, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, United States. 4. Rescu, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: PulsePoint Respond is a novel mobile device application that notifies citizens within 400 m (∼ 1/4 mile) of a suspected cardiac arrest to facilitate resuscitation. Our objectives were to (1) characterize users, and (2) understand their behavior after being sent a notification. We sought to identify challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint-mediated bystander resuscitation. METHODS: PulsePoint Respond users who sent a notification between 04/07/2012 and 06/16/2014 were invited to participate in an online survey. At the beginning of our study, PulsePoint Respond was active in more than 600 US communities. RESULTS: There were 1274 completed surveys (response rate 1448/6777, 21.4%). Respondents were firefighters (28%), paramedics (18%), emergency medical technicians (9%), nurses (7%), MDs (1%), other health care professionals (12%), and non-health care professionals (42%). Of those who received a PulsePoint notification, only 23% (189/813) responded to the PulsePoint notification. Of those who responded, 28% (52/187) did not arrive on scene. Of those who did arrive on scene, only 32% (44/135) found a person unconscious and not breathing normally. Of those who arrived on scene prior to emergency medical services and found a cardiac arrest victim, 79% (11/14) performed bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint Respond include technical aspects of the notifications (audio volume, precision of location information), excessive activation radii, insufficient user density in the community, and suboptimal cardiac arrest notification specificity. PulsePoint Respond has the potential to improve the community response to cardiac arrest, with 80% of responders attempting basic life support when they found a cardiac arrest victim prior to EMS.
BACKGROUND: PulsePoint Respond is a novel mobile device application that notifies citizens within 400 m (∼ 1/4 mile) of a suspected cardiac arrest to facilitate resuscitation. Our objectives were to (1) characterize users, and (2) understand their behavior after being sent a notification. We sought to identify challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint-mediated bystander resuscitation. METHODS: PulsePoint Respond users who sent a notification between 04/07/2012 and 06/16/2014 were invited to participate in an online survey. At the beginning of our study, PulsePoint Respond was active in more than 600 US communities. RESULTS: There were 1274 completed surveys (response rate 1448/6777, 21.4%). Respondents were firefighters (28%), paramedics (18%), emergency medical technicians (9%), nurses (7%), MDs (1%), other health care professionals (12%), and non-health care professionals (42%). Of those who received a PulsePoint notification, only 23% (189/813) responded to the PulsePoint notification. Of those who responded, 28% (52/187) did not arrive on scene. Of those who did arrive on scene, only 32% (44/135) found a person unconscious and not breathing normally. Of those who arrived on scene prior to emergency medical services and found a cardiac arrest victim, 79% (11/14) performed bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint Respond include technical aspects of the notifications (audio volume, precision of location information), excessive activation radii, insufficient user density in the community, and suboptimal cardiac arrest notification specificity. PulsePoint Respond has the potential to improve the community response to cardiac arrest, with 80% of responders attempting basic life support when they found a cardiac arrest victim prior to EMS.
Authors: Hadi Hajari; Jessica Salerno; Lenny S Weiss; James J Menegazzi; Hassan Karimi; David D Salcido Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Alexander E White; Andrew Fw Ho; Nur Shahidah; Nurul Asyikin; Le Xuan Liew; Pin Pin Pek; Jade Ph Kua; Michael Yc Chia; Yih Yng Ng; Shalini Arulanandam; Sieu-Hon Benjamin Leong; Marcus Eh Ong Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Perrine Créquit; Ghizlène Mansouri; Mehdi Benchoufi; Alexandre Vivot; Philippe Ravaud Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: David Fredman; Jan Haas; Yifang Ban; Martin Jonsson; Leif Svensson; Therese Djarv; Jacob Hollenberg; Per Nordberg; Mattias Ringh; Andreas Claesson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 2.692