The Accuracy of Predicting Cardiac Arrest by Emergency Medical Services Dispatchers: The Calling Party Effect

Garza, Alex; Gratton, Matthew; Chen, John J.; Carlson, Brent

doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00651.x

Cited by 45 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Seven observational studies reported the sensitivity of dispatch protocols to recognize cardiac arrest, 17,18,21,[29][30][31][32] with results that ranged from 38% to 96.9% and specificity that exceeded 99% in the 2 studies that reported this outcome. 29,30 Recognition rates of cardiac arrest ranged from 18% to 83% where reported.…”

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the critical outcome of cardiac arrest recognition, we identified very-low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision) from 1 cluster RCT, 12 as well as very-low-quality evidence from 26 non-RCTs comprising 8 before-after observational studies, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] 9 prospective single-arm observational studies, 13,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] 8 retrospective single-arm observational studies, [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and 1 case-control study. 11 A total of 17 420 patients were included in these 27 studies.…”

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Travers¹,

Perkins²,

Berg³

et al. 2015

Circulation

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This Part of the 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopul monary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) presents the consensus on science and treatment recommendations for adult basic life support (BLS) and automated external defibrillation (AED). After the publication of the 2010 CoSTR, the Adult BLS Task Force developed review questions in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format.1 This resulted in the generation of 36 PICO questions for systematic reviews. The task force discussed the topics and then voted to prioritize the most important questions to be tackled in 2015. From the pool of 36 questions, 14 were rated low priority and were deferred from this round of evidence evaluation. Two new questions were submitted by task force members, and 1 was submitted via the public portal. Two of these (BLS 856 and BLS 891) were taken forward for evidence review. The third question (368: ForeignBody Airway Obstruction) was deferred after a preliminary review of the evidence failed to identify compelling evidence that would alter the treatment recommendations made when the topic was last reviewed in 2005. 2 Each task force performed a systematic review using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.3 With the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library).Reviewers were unable to identify any relevant evidence for 3 questions (BLS 811, BLS 373, and BLS 348), and the evidence review was not completed in time for a further question (BLS 370). A revised PICO question was developed for the opioid question (BLS 891). The task force reviewed 23 PICO questions for the 2015 consensus on science and treatment recommendations, including BLS 811, BLS 373, and BLS 348. The PICO flow is summarized in Figure 1.Using the methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, 4 the reviewers for each question created a reconciled risk-of-bias assessment for each of the included studies, using state-of-the-art tools: Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 for studies of diagnostic accuracy, 6 and GRADE for observational studies that inform both therapy and prognosis questions.7 GRADE evidence profile tables 8 were then created to facilitate an evaluation of the evidence in support of each of the critical and important outcomes. Critical outcomes were defined as neurologically favorable outcome (level 9), survival (level 8), and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC; level 7). Given the heterogeneity of time points evaluated in the studies related to BLS/AED, time intervals were pooled across outcomes. For neurologic outcome and survival, we considered the outcomes at discharge,...

show abstract

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Travers¹,

Perkins²,

Berg³

et al. 2015

Circulation

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19a A 2-question approach can efficiently achieve this goal (Figure 1), although no single identification strategy will identify all cardiac arrests. 20 If the patient is determined to be unresponsive and not breathing or not breathing normally, then the presumptive diagnosis is cardiac arrest and CPR prearrival instructions should be provided to the caller. The initial emergency call receiver should provide CPR prearrival instructions whenever possible or transfer the call to other dispatch personnel who are responsible for this action and will provide instructions.…”

Section: Facilitating Bystander Recognition Of a Patient With Cardiacmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergency Medical Service Dispatch Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Prearrival Instructions to Improve Survival From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Lerner¹,

Rea²,

Bobrow³

et al. 2012

Circulation

177

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…18,67,180,181 The ability of dispatchers to recognize cardiac arrest over the phone ranges between 68% and 90%. 173,182 Agonal breathing, present as frequently as 30% in cardiac arrest victims, can limit their ability to recognize cardiac arrest. 183,184 In Seattle, dispatchers overcalled cardiac arrest 14% of the time, leading to 4.3% inappropriate CPR administrations, though no adverse events were incurred.…”

Section: Where Should Cpr Instructions Be Given?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and improving low bystander CPR rates: a systematic review of the literature

Vaillancourt

Stiell

Wells

2008

CJEM

143

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a crucial yet weak link in the chain of survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to understand the determinants of bystander CPR and the factors associated with successful training. Methods: For this systematic review, we searched 11 electronic databases, 1 trial registry and 9 scientific websites. We performed hand searches and contacted 6 content experts. We reviewed without restriction all communications pertaining to who should learn CPR, what should be taught, when to repeat training, where to give CPR instructions and why people lack the motivation to learn and perform CPR. We used standardized forms to review papers for inclusion, quality and data extraction. We grouped publications by category and classified recommendations using a standardized classification system that was based on level of evidence. Results: We reviewed 2409 articles and selected 411 for complete evaluation. We included 252 of the 411 papers in this systematic review. Differences in their study design precluded a meta-analysis. We classified 22 recommendations; those with the highest scores were 1) 9-1-1 dispatchassisted CPR instructions, 2) teaching CPR to family members of cardiac patients, 3) Braslow's selftraining video, 4) maximizing time spent using manikins and 5) teaching the concepts of ambiguity and diffusion of responsibility. Recommendations not supported by evidence include mass training events, pulse taking prior to CPR by laymen and CPR using chest compressions alone. Conclusion:We evaluated and classified the potential impact of interventions that have been proposed to improve bystander CPR rates. Our results may help communities design interventions to improve their bystander CPR rates. RÉSUMÉ Objectifs : La réanimation cardio-respiratoire (RCR) est un maillon essentiel, quoique faible, de la chaîne de survie lors de la survenue d'un arrêt cardiaque hors de l'hôpital. Nous avons cherché à comprendre les déterminants du taux de passants pouvant administrer la RCR et les facteurs liés à une formation efficace. Méthodes : Dans le cadre de cette revue systématique, nous avons analysé 11 bases de données électroniques, un registre d'essais cliniques et neuf sites Web scientifiques. Nous avons réalisé des recherches manuelles et communiqué avec six experts du contenu. Nous avons examiné sans restriction toutes les communications portant sur les questions suivantes : qui devrait apprendre la RCR, ce qu'on devrait enseigner, QUAND la formation devrait être renouvelée, où les cours de

show abstract

The Accuracy of Predicting Cardiac Arrest by Emergency Medical Services Dispatchers: The Calling Party Effect

Abstract: A higher level of medical training may improve dispatch accuracy for predicting cardiac arrest. The type of calling party influenced the PPV of dispatcher-assigned condition.

Cited by 45 publications

References 18 publications

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Emergency Medical Service Dispatch Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Prearrival Instructions to Improve Survival From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Understanding and improving low bystander CPR rates: a systematic review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About