Search

Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is internationally defined as chest compressions and rescue breaths, and is a subset of resuscitation. First used for out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, CPR is now frequently used for in‐hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) with different causes and outcomes. Aims: This paper aims to describe clinical understanding of the role of in‐hospital CPR and perceived outcomes for IHCA. Methods: An online survey of a secondary care staff involved in resuscitation was conducted, focussing on definitions of CPR, features of do‐not‐attempt‐CPR conversations with patients and clinical case scenarios. Data were analysed using a simple descriptive approach. Results: Of 652 responses, 500 were complete and used for analysis. Two hundred eleven respondents were senior medical staff covering acute medical disciplines. Ninety‐one percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that defibrillation is part of CPR, and 96% believed CPR for IHCA included defibrillation. Responses to clinical scenarios were dissonant, with nearly half of respondents demonstrating a pattern of underestimating survival and subsequently showing a desire to offer CPR in similar scenarios with poor outcomes. This was unaffected by seniority and level of resuscitation training. Conclusions: The common use of CPR in hospital reflects the broader definition of resuscitation. Recapturing the CPR definition for clinicians and patients as only chest compressions and rescue breaths may allow clinicians to better discuss individualised resuscitation care to aide meaningful shared decision‐making around patient deterioration. This may involve reframing current in‐hospital algorithms and uncoupling CPR from wider resuscitative measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chest pain is common and places a significant burden on hospital resources. Many patients with undifferentiated low- to intermediate-risk chest pain are admitted to hospital. Rapid-access cardiology ( RAC) services are hospital co-located, cardiologist-led outpatient clinics that provide rapid assessment and immediate management but not long-term management. This service model is described as part of chest pain management and the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease in the United Kingdom ( UK). We review the evidence on the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of RAC services. Our review finds that early assessment in RAC outpatient services of patients with suspected angina, without high-risk features suspicious of an acute coronary syndrome, is safe, can reduce hospitalisations, is cost effective and has good medical practitioner and patient acceptability. However, the literature is limited in that the evaluation of this model of care has been only in the UK. It is potentially suited to other settings and needs further evaluation in other settings to assess its utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]