Do RATs save lives? A service evaluation of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest team in an English ambulance service

Evolution of European Resuscitation and End-of-Life Practices from 2015 to 2019: A Survey-Based Comparative Evaluation

Background: In concordance with the results of large, observational studies, a 2015 European survey suggested variation in resuscitation/end-of-life practices and emergency care organization across 31 countries. The current survey-based study aimed to comparatively assess the evolution of practices from 2015 to 2019, especially in countries with “low” (i.e., average or lower) 2015 questionnaire domain scores. Methods: The 2015 questionnaire with additional consensus-based questions was used. The 2019 questionnaire covered practices/decisions related to end-of-life care (domain A); determinants of access to resuscitation/post-resuscitation care (domain B); diagnosis of death/organ donation (domain C); and emergency care organization (domain D). Responses from 25 countries were analyzed. Positive or negative responses were graded by 1 or 0, respectively. Domain scores were calculated by summation of practice-specific response grades. Results: Domain A and B scores for 2015 and 2019 were similar. Domain C score decreased by 1 point [95% confidence interval (CI): 1–3; p = 0.02]. Domain D score increased by 2.6 points (95% CI: 0.2–5.0; p = 0.035); this improvement was driven by countries with “low” 2015 domain D scores. In countries with “low” 2015 domain A scores, domain A score increased by 5.5 points (95% CI: 0.4–10.6; p = 0.047). Conclusions: In 2019, improvements in emergency care organization and an increasing frequency of end-of-life practices were observed primarily in countries with previously “low” scores in the corresponding domains of the 2015 questionnaire.

An exploration of UK paramedics' experiences of cardiopulmonary resuscitation-induced consciousness

Introduction:

Consciousness may occur during cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite the absence of a palpable pulse. This phenomenon, known as CPR-Induced Consciousness (CPR-IC), was first described over three decades ago and there has been an increase in case reports describing it. However, there remains limited evidence in relation to the incidence of CPR-IC and to practitioners’ experiences of it.

Methods:

A mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey of paramedics who were registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and working in the United Kingdom (UK) at the time of the survey. Participants who had experienced CPR-IC were asked to provide details about the number of episodes, a description of how consciousness was manifested and whether or not it interfered with resuscitation.

Results:

293 eligible participants completed the study and 167 (57%) said that they had witnessed CPR-IC. Of those, over 56% reported that they had experienced it on at least two occasions. CPR-IC was deemed to interfere with resuscitation in nearly 50% of first experiences but this fell to around 31% by the third experience. The most common reasons for CPR-IC to interfere with resuscitation were: patient resisting clinical interventions, increased rhythm and pulse checks, distress, confusion and reluctance to perform CPR.

Conclusions:

The prevalence of CPR-IC in our study was similar to that in earlier studies; however, unlike the other studies, we did not define what constituted interfering CPR-IC. Our findings suggest that interference may be related as much to the exposure of the clinician to CPR-IC as to any specific characteristic of the phenomenon itself.