Background Over the past decade Smartphone-based activation (SBA) of Community First Responders (CFR) to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) has gained much attention and popularity throughout Europe. Various programmes have been established, and interestingly there are considerable differences in technology, responder spectrum and the degree of integration into the prehospital emergency services. It is unclear whether these dissimilarities affect outcome. This paper reviews the current state in five European countries, reveals similarities and controversies, and presents consensus statements generated in an international conference with the intention to support public decision making on future strategies for SBA of CFR. Methods In a consensus conference a three-step approach was used: (i) presentation of current research from five European countries; (ii) workshops discussing evidence amongst the audience to generate consensus statements; (iii) anonymous real-time voting applying the modified RAND-UCLA Appropriateness method to adopt or reject the statements. The consensus panel aimed to represent all stakeholders involved in this topic. Results While 21 of 25 generated statements gained approval, consensus was only found for 5 of them. One statement was rejected but without consensus. Members of the consensus conference confirmed that CFR save lives. They further acknowledged the crucial role of emergency medical control centres and called for nationwide strategies. Conclusions Members of the consensus conference acknowledged that smartphone-based activation of CFR to OHCA saves lives. The statements generated by the consensus conference may assist the public, healthcare services and governments to utilise these systems to their full potential, and direct the research community towards fields that still need to be addressed.

IntroductionThe increasing burden of mental distress reported by healthcare professionals is a matter of serious concern and there is a growing recognition of the role of the workplace in creating this problem. Magnet hospitals, a model shown to attract and retain staff in US research, creates positive work environments that aim to support the well-being of healthcare professionals.Methods and analysisMagnet4Europe is a cluster randomised controlled trial, with wait list controls, designed to evaluate the effects of organisational redesign, based on the Magnet model, on nurses’ and physicians’ well-being in general acute care hospitals, using a multicomponent implementation strategy. The study will be conducted in more than 60 general acute care hospitals in Belgium, England, Germany, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. The primary outcome is burnout among nurses and physicians, assessed in longitudinal surveys of nurses and physicians at participating hospitals. Additional data will be collected from them on perceived work environments, patient safety and patient quality of care and will be triangulated with data from medical records, including case mix-adjusted in-hospital mortality. The process of implementation will be evaluated using qualitative data from focus group and key informant interviews.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven, Belgium; additionally, ethics approval is obtained in all other participating countries either through a central or decentral authority. Findings will be disseminated at conferences, through peer-reviewed manuscripts and via social media.Trial registration numberISRCTN10196901.

No abstract

Background German emergency medical services are a 2-tiered system with paramedic-staffed ambulances as the primary response, supported by prehospital emergency doctors for life-threatening conditions. As in all European health care systems, German medical practitioners are in short supply, whereas the demand for timely emergency medical care is constantly growing. In rural areas, this has led to critical delays in the provision of emergency medical care. In particular, in cases of cardiac arrest, time is of the essence because, with each passing minute, the chance of survival with good neurological outcome decreases. Objective The project has 4 main objectives: (1) reduce the therapy-free interval through widespread reinforcement of resuscitation skills and motivating the public to provide help (ie, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation), (2) provide faster professional first aid in addition to rescue services through alerting trained first aiders by mobile phone, (3) make more emergency physicians available more quickly through introducing the tele-emergency physician system, and (4) enhance emergency care through improving the cooperation between statutory health insurance on-call medical services (German: Kassenärztlicher Bereitschaftsdienst) and emergency medical services. Methods We will evaluate project implementation in a tripartite prospective and intervention study. First, in medical evaluation, we will assess the influences of various project measures on quality of care using multiple methods. Second, the economic evaluation will mainly focus on the valuation of inputs and outcomes of the different measures while considering various relevant indicators. Third, as part of the work and organizational analysis, we will assess important work- and occupational-related parameters, as well as network and regional indexes. Results We started the project in 2017 and will complete enrollment in 2020. We finished the preanalysis phase in September 2018. Conclusions Overall, implementation of the project will entail realigning emergency medicine in rural areas and enhancing the quality of medical emergency care in the long term. We expect the project to lead to a measurable increase in medical laypersons’ individual motivation to provide resuscitation, to strengthen resuscitation skills, and to result in medical laypersons providing first aid much more frequently. Furthermore, we intend the project to decrease the therapy-free interval in cases of cardiac arrest by dispatching first aiders via mobile phones. Previous projects in urban regions have shown that the tele-emergency physician system can provide a higher availability and quality of emergency call-outs in regular health care. We expect a closer interrelation of emergency practices of statutory health insurance physicians with the rescue service to lead to better coordination of rescue and on-call services. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/14358

Background and objective Teleemergency doctors support ambulance cars at the emergency site by means of telemedicine. Currently, each district has its own teleemergency doctor office (decentralized solution). This paper analyses the advantages and disadvantages of a centralized solution where several teleemergency doctors work in parallel in one office to support the ambulances in more districts. Methods The service of incoming calls from ambulances to the teleemergency doctor office can be modelled as a queuing system. Based on the data of the district of Vorpommern-Greifswald in the Northeast of Germany, we assume that arrivals and services are Markov chains. The model has parallel channels proportionate to the number of teleemergency doctors working simultaneously and the number of calls which one doctor can handle in parallel. We develop a cost function with variable, fixed and step-fixed costs. Results For the district of Greifswald, the likelihood that an incoming call has to be put on hold because the teleemergency doctor is already fully occupied is negligible. Centralization of several districts with a higher number of ambulances in one teleemergency doctor office will increase the likelihood of overburdening and require more doctors working simultaneously. The cost of the teleemergency doctor office per ambulance serviced strongly declines with the number of districts cooperating. Discussion The calculations indicate that centralization is feasible and cost-effective. Other advantages (e.g. improved quality, higher flexibility) and disadvantages (lack of knowledge of the location and infrastructure) of centralization are discussed. Conclusions We recommend centralization of telemedical emergency services. However, the number of districts cooperating in one teleemergency doctor office should not be too high and the distance between the ambulance station and the telemedical station should not be too large.