Deborah Walsh

Improving In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Process and Outcomes With Performance Debriefing

BACKGROUND Recent investigations have documented poor cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance in clinical practice. We hypothesized that a debriefing intervention using CPR quality data from actual in-hospital cardiac arrests (resuscitation with actual performance integrated debriefing [RAPID]) would improve CPR performance and initial patient survival. METHODS Internal medicine residents at a university hospital attended weekly debriefing sessions of the prior weeks resuscitations, between March 2006 and February 2007, reviewing CPR performance transcripts obtained from a CPR-sensing and feedback-enabled defibrillator. Objective metrics of CPR performance and initial return of spontaneous circulation were compared with a historical cohort in which a similar feedback-delivering defibrillator was used but without RAPID. RESULTS Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and outcome data from 123 patients resuscitated during the intervention period were compared with 101 patients in the baseline cohort. Compared with the control period, the mean (SD) ventilation rate decreased (13 [7]/min vs 18 [8]/min; P < .001) and compression depth increased (50 [10] vs 44 [10] mm; P = .001), among other CPR improvements. These changes correlated with an increase in the rate of return of spontaneous circulation in the RAPID group (59.4% vs 44.6%; P = .03) but no change in survival to discharge (7.4% vs 8.9%; P = .69). CONCLUSIONS The combination of RAPID and real-time audiovisual feedback improved CPR quality compared with the use of feedback alone and was associated with an increased rate of return of spontaneous circulation. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation sensing and recording devices allow for methods of debriefing that were previously available only for simulation-based education; such methods have the potential to fundamentally alter resuscitation training and improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00228293.

Safety and efficacy of defibrillator charging during ongoing chest compressions: A multi-center study

BACKGROUND Pauses in chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation have been shown to correlate with poor outcomes. In an attempt to minimize these pauses, the American Heart Association recommends charging the defibrillator during chest compressions. While simulation work suggests decreased pause times using this technique, little is known about its use in clinical practice. METHODS We conducted a multi-center, retrospective study of defibrillator charging at three US academic teaching hospitals between April 2006 and April 2009. Data were abstracted from CPR-sensing defibrillator transcripts. Pre-shock pauses and total hands-off time preceding the defibrillation attempts were compared among techniques. RESULTS A total of 680 charge-cycles from 244 cardiac arrests were analyzed. The defibrillator was charged during ongoing chest compressions in 448 (65.9%) instances with wide variability across the three sites. Charging during compressions correlated with a decrease in median pre-shock pause [2.6s (IQR 1.9-3.8) vs 13.3s (IQR 8.6-19.5); p < 0.001] and total hands-off time in the 30s preceding defibrillation [10.3s (IQR 6.4-13.8) vs 14.8s (IQR 11.0-19.6); p < 0.001]. The improvement in hands-off time was most pronounced when rescuers charged the defibrillator in anticipation of the pause, prior to any rhythm analysis. There was no difference in inappropriate shocks when charging during chest compressions (20.0% vs 20.1%; p = 0.97) and there was only one instance noted of inadvertent shock administration during compressions, which went unnoticed by the compressor. CONCLUSIONS Charging during compressions is underutilized in clinical practice. The technique is associated with decreased hands-off time preceding defibrillation, with minimal risk to patients or rescuers.

Assessing the impact of immersive simulation on clinical performance during actual in-hospital cardiac arrest with CPR-sensing technology: A randomized feasibility study

AIM Advanced simulation tools are increasingly being incorporated into cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training. These educational methods have been shown to improve trainee performance in simulated settings, but translation into clinical practice remains unknown for many aspects of CPR quality. This study attempts to measure the impact of simulation-based training for resuscitation team leaders on some measures of CPR quality during actual in-hospital resuscitation attempts. METHODS In this prospective, randomized interventional cluster trial, internal medicine resident physicians (post-graduate year 2) were randomized using a random number generator to participate in a 4-h, immersive simulation course in cardiopulmonary resuscitation leadership using a high-fidelity simulator with video debriefing prior to serving as resuscitation team leaders at an academic medical center. Objective metrics of actual resuscitation performance were obtained from a CPR-sensing monitor/defibrillator. RESULTS Thirty-two residents were randomized to receive simulation training or no additional training between April and July 2007 and data were collected following 98 actual resuscitations between July 2007 and June 2008. CPR quality from resuscitations led by 14 simulation-trained and 16 control group residents was similar in terms of mean compression depth (48 vs 49 mm; p = 0.53); compression rate (107 vs 104 min⁻¹; p = 0.30); ventilation rate (12 vs 12 min⁻¹; p = 0.45) and no-flow fraction (0.08 vs 0.07; p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS Although we failed to detect any significant differences in objective measures of CPR quality, we have demonstrated that CPR-sensing technology has the potential for use in assessing the impact of a simulation curriculum on some aspects of actual resuscitation performance. A larger study, performed in a setting with lower baseline performance, would be required to assess the specific simulation curriculum.