Importance of reporting survival as incidence: a cross-sectional comparative study on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest registry data from Germany and Norway.

OBJECTIVES: Health registries are a unique source of information about current practice and can describe disease burden in a population. We aimed to understand similarities and differences in the German Resuscitation Registry (GRR) and the Norwegian Cardiac Arrest Registry (NorCAR) and compare incidence and survival for patients resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: A cross-sectional comparative analysis reporting incidence and outcome on a population level. SETTING: We included data from the cardiac arrest registries in Germany and Norway. PARTICIPANTS: Patients resuscitated between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included, resulting in 29 222 cases from GRR and 16 406 cases from NorCAR. From GRR, only emergency medical services (EMS) reporting survival information for patients admitted to the hospital were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: This study focused on the EMS systems, the registries and the patients included in both registries. The results compare the total incidence, incidence of patients resuscitated by EMS, and the incidence of survival. RESULTS: We found an incidence of 68 per 100 000 inhabitants in GRR and 63 in NorCAR. The incidence of patients treated by EMS was 67 in GRR and 53 in NorCAR. The incidence of patients arriving at a hospital was higher in GRR (24.3) than in NorCAR (15.1), but survival was similar (8 in GRR and 7.8 in NorCAR). CONCLUSION: GRR is a voluntary registry, and in-hospital information is not reported for all cases. NorCAR has mandatory reporting from all EMS and hospitals. EMS in Germany starts treatment on more patients and bring a higher number to hospital, but we found no difference in the incidence of survival. This study has improved our knowledge of both registries and highlighted the importance of reporting survival as incidence when comparing registries.

[Update Resuscitation - Resuscitation 4.0]. / Update Reanimation ­ Reanimation 4.0.

The future of emergency medicine is determined by technical innovations. Besides virtual reality in education and training, the detection of a deteriorating patient and a cardiac arrest will become digital. The biggest milestone will be the individualized cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Maybe in future virtual intelligence will determine the CPR workflow more than standardized algorithm.

Evaluation of new quality indicators for the TraumaRegister DGU® using the systematic QUALIFY methodology.

BACKGROUND: The TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) of the German Trauma Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU) enables the participating hospitals to perform quality management. For that purpose, nine so-called audit filters have existed, since its foundation, which, inter alia, is listed in the Annual Report. The objective of this study effort is a revision of these quality indicators with the aim of developing pertinent new and reliable quality indicators for the management of severely injured patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Apart from indicators already used at national and international levels, a systematic review of the literature revealed further potential key figures for quality of the management of severely injured patients. The latter were evaluated by an interdisciplinary and interprofessional group of experts using a standardized QUALIFY process to assess their suitability as a quality indicator. RESULTS: By means of the review of the literature, 39 potential indicators could be identified. 9 and 14 indicators, respectively, were identified in existing trauma registries (TR-DGU and TARN), 17 in the ATLS® training concept, and 57 in the S3 guideline on the treatment of polytrauma/severe injuries. The exclusion of duplicates and the limitation to indicators that can be collected using the TR-DGU Version 2015 data set resulted in a total of 43 indicators to be reviewed. For each of the 43 indicators, 13 quality criteria were assessed. A consensus was achieved in 305 out of 559 individual assessments. With 13 quality criteria assessed and 43 indicators correspond this to a relative consensus value of 54.6%. None of the indicators achieved a consensus in all 13 quality criteria assessed. The following 13 indicators achieved a consensus in at least 9 quality criteria: time between hospital admission and WBCT, mortality, administration of tranexamic acid to bleeding patients, use of CCT with GCS <14, time until first emergency surgical intervention (7-item list in the TR-DGU), time until surgical intervention for penetrating trauma, application of pelvic sling belt (prehospital), capnometry (etCO2) in intubated patients, time until CCT with GCS < 15, time until surgery for hemorrhagic shock, time until craniotomy for severe TBI, prehospital airway management in unconscious patients (GCS < 9), and complete basic diagnostics available. Two indicators achieved a consensus in 11 criteria and thus represent the maximum consensus achieved within the group of experts. Four indicators only achieved a consensus in three quality criteria. 17 indicators had a mean value for the 3 relevance criteria of ≥ 3.5 and were, therefore, assessed by the group of experts as being highly relevant. CONCLUSION: Not all the key figures published for the management of severely injured patients are suitable for use as quality indicators. It remains to be seen whether the quality indicators identified by experts using the QUALIFY process will meet the requirements in practice. Prior to the implementation of the assessed quality indicators in standardized quality assurance programs, a scientific evaluation based on national data will be required.

Correction to: Evaluation of new quality indicators for the TraumaRegister DGU® using the systematic QUALIFY methodology.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained some mistakes.