Search

For this 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, the Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force applied the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, study design, time frame format and performed 15 systematic reviews, applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidance. Furthermore, 4 scoping reviews and 7 evidence updates assessed any new evidence to determine if a change in any existing treatment recommendation was required. The topics covered included training for the treatment of opioid overdose; basic life support, including automated external defibrillator training; measuring implementation and performance in communities, and cardiac arrest centers; advanced life support training, including team and leadership training and rapid response teams; measuring cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance, feedback devices, and debriefing; and the use of social media to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation application.

Current evidence demonstrates considerable variability in cardiac arrest survival in and out of hospital and, therefore, substantial opportunity to save many more lives.1–3 The Formula for Survival4 postulates that optimal survival from cardiac arrest requires high-quality science, education of lay providers and healthcare professionals, and a well-functioning Chain of Survival5 (implementation). The Education, Implementation, and Teams (EIT) Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) set out to define the key PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions related to resuscitation education (including teamwork skills) and systems-level implementation that would be reviewed by 2015. The selection of questions was supported through the use of an online anonymous task force member–only voting process where the results were considered in the ultimate consensus decisions of the task force. Topics from the 2010 evidence review process were scrutinized for relevance, the potential to improve outcomes, and the likelihood of new evidence being published since 2010. Finally, PICO questions for which the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was not as well developed at the time of PICO selection were deferred until at least after the 2015 cycle. We planned to reduce the total number of PICO questions reviewed to provide more in-depth and evidence-based reviews of the included questions. New topics were determined on the basis of the evolving literature and changes in resuscitation practice. Input on the selection of PICO questions was sought from the general public through the ILCOR website and from ILCOR member resuscitation councils through their council chairs and individual task force members. The EIT Task Force performed detailed systematic reviews based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies6 and using the methodological approach proposed by the …

Utstein-style guidelines contribute to improved public health internationally by providing a structured framework with which to compare emergency medical services systems. Advances in resuscitation science, new insights into important predictors of outcome from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and lessons learned from methodological research prompted this review and update of the 2004 Utstein guidelines. Representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation developed an updated Utstein reporting framework iteratively by meeting face to face, by teleconference, and by Web survey during 2012 through 2014. Herein are recommendations for reporting out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Data elements were grouped by system factors, dispatch/recognition, patient variables, resuscitation/postresuscitation processes, and outcomes. Elements were classified as core or supplemental using a modified Delphi process primarily based on respondents' assessment of the evidence-based importance of capturing those elements, tempered by the challenges to collect them. New or modified elements reflected consensus on the need to account for emergency medical services system factors, increasing availability of automated external defibrillators, data collection processes, epidemiology trends, increasing use of dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, emerging field treatments, postresuscitation care, prognostication tools, and trends in organ recovery. A standard reporting template is recommended to promote standardized reporting. This template facilitates reporting of the bystander-witnessed, shockable rhythm as a measure of emergency medical services system efficacy and all emergency medical services system-treated arrests as a measure of system effectiveness. Several additional important subgroups are identified that enable an estimate of the specific contribution of rhythm and bystander actions that are key determinants of outcome. (C) 2014 European Resuscitation Council and American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

To describe the policy and practice relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation in cardiac arrest in Australian hospitals.Cross-sectional postal survey conducted in December 2001, using a semi-structured, four-page questionnaire.Australian hospitals with more than 10 beds.Type of defibrillator; provision of CPR/defibrillation training for healthcare professionals; hospital policy as to who can use the defibrillator.Of the 878 hospitals surveyed, 665 (76%) responded. All but one hospital indicated that CPR training was provided for nursing staff, with 12-monthly or more frequent updates; only 55% of hospitals (366) indicated that CPR training was provided for doctors. 21 of the 665 responding hospitals (3.2%) indicated that they did not have a defibrillator. 43% of hospitals had one or more defibrillators with shock advisory capacity (ie, automated external defibrillators [AEDs]). Of the 644 hospitals with defibrillators, 16% (101) indicated that registered nurses were not permitted to defibrillate; this included 9% of hospitals with AEDs.The importance of CPR in cardiac arrest has been accepted by Australian hospitals, but the overwhelming evidence that "time to defibrillation" is the single most important determinant of cardiac arrest outcome seems less accepted. All Australian hospitals should review their resuscitation policies and practices to reflect this fact, with defibrillation by nurses, who are usually first on the scene, providing the best opportunity to minimise time to defibrillation.