Real-Time Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Feedback and Targeted Training Improve Chest Compression Performance in a Cohort of International Healthcare Providers

Video case review for quality improvement during cardiac arrest resuscitation in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are a leading global cause of mortality. The American Heart Association (AHA) promotes several important strategies associated with improved cardiac arrest (CA) outcomes, including decreasing pulse check time and maintaining a chest compression fraction (CCF) > 0.80. Video review is a potential tool to improve skills and analyse deficiencies in various situations; however, its use in improving medical resuscitation remains poorly studied in the emergency department (ED). We implemented a quality improvement initiative, which utilised video review of CA resuscitations in an effort to improve compliance with such AHA quality metrics.

METHODS

A cardiopulmonary resuscitation video review team of emergency medicine residents were assembled to analyse CA resuscitations in our urban academic ED. Videos were reviewed by two residents, one of whom was a senior resident (Postgraduate Year 3 or 4), and analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for numerous quality improvement metrics, including pulse check time, CCF, time to intravenous access and time to patient attached to monitor.

RESULTS

We collected data on 94 CA resuscitations between July 2017 and June 2020. Average pulse check time was 13.09 (SD ± 5.97) seconds, and 38% of pulse checks were <10 seconds. After the implementation of the video review process, there was a significant decrease in average pulse check time (P = .01) and a significant increase in CCF (P = .01) throughout the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the video review and feedback process was significantly associated with improvements in AHA quality metrics for resuscitation in CA amongst patients presented to the ED.

Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate various methods of chest compressions in patients with suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection conducted by medical students wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP).

METHODS

This was prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, crossover simulation trial. Thirty-five medical students after an advanced cardiovascular life support course, which included performing 2-min continuous chest compression scenarios using three methods: (A) manual chest compression (CC), (B) compression with CPRMeter, (C) compression with LifeLine ARM device. During resuscitation they are wearing full personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures.

RESULTS

The median chest compression depth using manual CC, CPRMeter and LifeLine ARM varied and amounted to 40 (38-45) vs. 45 (40-50) vs. 51 (50-52) mm, respectively (p = 0.002). The median chest compression rate was 109 (IQR; 102-131) compressions per minute (CPM) for manual CC, 107 (105-127) CPM for CPRMeter, and 102 (101-102) CPM for LifeLine ARM (p = 0.027). The percentage of correct chest recoil was the highest for LifeLine ARM - 100% (95-100), 80% (60-90) in CPRMeter group, and the lowest for manual CC - 29% (26-48).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of this simulation trial, automated chest compression devices (ACCD) should be used for chest compression of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. In the absence of ACCD, it seems reasonable to change the cardiopulmonary resuscitation algorithm (in the context of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19) by reducing the duration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation cycle from the current 2-min to 1-min cycles due to a statistically significant reduction in the quality of chest compressions among rescuers wearing PPE AGP.