Association of Bystander and First-Responder Efforts and Outcomes According to Sex: Results From the North Carolina HeartRescue Statewide Quality Improvement Initiative.

Background The Institute of Medicine has called for actions to understand and target sex-related differences in care and outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. We assessed changes in bystander and first-responder interventions and outcomes for males versus females after statewide efforts to improve cardiac arrest care. Methods and Results We identified out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from North Carolina (2010-2014) through the CARES (Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival) registry. Outcomes for men versus women were examined through multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for (1) nonmodifiable factors (age, witnessed status, and initial heart rhythm) and (2) nonmodifiable plus modifiable factors (bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation before emergency medical services), including interactions between sex and time (ie, year and year2). Of 8100 patients, 38.1% were women. From 2010 to 2014, there was an increase in bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (men, 40.5%-50.6%; women, 35.3%-51.8%; P for each <0.0001) and in the combination of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first-responder defibrillation (men, 15.8%-23.0%, P=0.007; women, 8.5%-23.7%, P=0.004). From 2010 to 2014, the unadjusted predicted probability of favorable neurologic outcome was higher and increased more for men (men, from 6.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.1-8.0] to 9.7% [95% CI, 8.1-11.3]; women, from 6.3% [95% CI, 4.4-8.3] to 7.4% [95% CI, 5.5-9.3%]); while adjusted for nonmodifiable factors, it was slightly higher but with a nonsignificant increase for women (from 9.2% [95% CI, 6.8-11.8] to 10.2% [95% CI, 8.0-12.5]; men, from 5.8% [95% CI, 4.6-7.0] to 8.4% [95% CI, 7.1-9.7]). Adding bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation before EMS (modifiable factors) did not substantially change the results. Conclusions Bystander and first-responder interventions increased for men and women, but outcomes improved significantly only for men. Additional strategies may be necessary to improve survival among female cardiac arrest patients.

North Carolina College of Emergency Physicians' Guidance Document on Emergency Medical Services.

The North Carolina College of Emergency Physicians (NCCEP) Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Committee uses an evidence-based approach in writing its protocols and procedures. The most recent revision of the NCCEP document, which was started in late 2010, lasted for more than 1 year and utilized committee members from across the state. Four meetings were held at locations across North Carolina. In addition, 2 surveys were sent to get input from EMS providers. Since 2010, the document has been updated on an ongoing basis, aligning it with the latest evidence-based medicine.

Association of Bystander and First-Responder Intervention With Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in North Carolina, 2010-2013.

IMPORTANCE: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with low survival, but early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation can improve outcomes if more widely adopted. OBJECTIVE: To examine temporal changes in bystander and first-responder resuscitation efforts before arrival of the emergency medical services (EMS) following statewide initiatives to improve bystander and first-responder efforts in North Carolina from 2010-2013 and to examine the association between bystander and first-responder resuscitation efforts and survival and neurological outcome. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: We studied 4961 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for whom resuscitation was attempted and who were identified through the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (2010-2013). First responders were dispatched police officers, firefighters, rescue squad, or life-saving crew trained to perform basic life support until arrival of the EMS. EXPOSURES: Statewide initiatives to improve bystander and first-responder interventions included training members of the general population in CPR and in use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), training first responders in team-based CPR including AED use and high-performance CPR, and training dispatch centers in recognition of cardiac arrest. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of bystander and first-responder resuscitation efforts, including the combination of efforts between bystanders and first responders, from 2010 through 2013 and the association between these resuscitation efforts and survival and neurological outcome. RESULTS: The combination of bystander CPR and first-responder defibrillation increased from 14.1% (51 of 362; 95% CI, 10.9%-18.1%) in 2010 to 23.1% (104 of 451; 95% CI, 19.4%-27.2%) in 2013 (P < .01). Survival with favorable neurological outcome increased from 7.1% (82 of 1149; 95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%) in 2010 to 9.7% (129 of 1334; 95% CI, 8.2%-11.4%) in 2013 (P = .02) and was associated with bystander-initiated CPR. Adjusting for age and sex, bystander and first-responder interventions were associated with higher survival to hospital discharge. Survival following EMS-initiated CPR and defibrillation was 15.2% (30 of 198; 95% CI, 10.8%-20.9%) compared with 33.6% (38 of 113; 95% CI, 25.5%-42.9%) following bystander-initiated CPR and defibrillation (odds ratio [OR], 3.12; 95% CI, 1.78-5.46); 24.2% (83 of 343; 95% CI, 20.0%-29.0%) following bystander CPR and first-responder defibrillation (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.06-2.71); and 25.2% (109 of 432; 95% CI, 21.4%-29.6%) following first-responder CPR and defibrillation (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.13-2.77). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Following a statewide educational intervention on rescusitation training, the proportion of patients receiving bystander-initiated CPR and defibrillation by first responders increased and was associated with greater likelihood of survival. Bystander-initiated CPR was associated with greater likelihood of survival with favorable neurological outcome.

Emergency department operations and management education in emergency medicine training.

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to examine the current level of operations and management education within US-based Emergency Medicine Residency programs. METHODS: Residency program directors at all US-based Emergency Medicine Residency programs were anonymously surveyed via a web-based instrument. Participants indicated their levels of residency education dedicated to documentation, billing/coding, core measure/quality indicator compliance, and operations management. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for the ordinal data / Likert scales. RESULTS: One hundred and six (106) program directors completed the study instrument of one hundred and fifty-six (156) programs (70%). Of these, 82.6% indicated emergency department (ED) operations and management education within the training curriculum. Dedicated documentation training was noted in all but 1 program (99%). Program educational offerings also included billing/coding (83%), core measure/quality indicators (78%) and operations management training (71%). In all areas, the most common means of educating came through didactic sessions and direct attending feedback or 69%-94% and 72%-98% respectively. Residency leadership was most confident with resident understanding of quality documentation (80%) and less so with core measures (72%), billing/coding/RVUs (58%), and operations management tools (23%). CONCLUSIONS: While most EM residency programs integrate basic operational education related to documentation and billing/coding, a smaller number provide focused education on the day-to-day management and operations of the ED. Residency leadership perceives graduating resident understanding of operational management tools to be limited. All respondents value further resident curriculum development of ED operations and management.

Emergency department operations and management education in emergency medicine training / 世界急诊医学杂志（英文）

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to examine the current level of operations and management education within US-based Emergency Medicine Residency programs.METHODS: Residency program directors at all US-based Emergency Medicine Residency programs were anonymously surveyed via a web-based instrument. Participants indicated their levels of residency education dedicated to documentation, billing/coding, core measure/quality indicator compliance, and operations management. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for the ordinal data / Likert scales.RESULTS: One hundred and six (106) program directors completed the study instrument of one hundred and fifty-six (156) programs (70％). Of these, 82.6％ indicated emergency department (ED) operations and management education within the training curriculum. Dedicated documentation training was noted in all but 1 program (99％). Program educational offerings also included billing/coding (83％), core measure/quality indicators (78％) and operations management training (71％). In all areas, the most common means of educating came through didactic sessions and direct attending feedback or 69％-94％ and 72％-98％ respectively. Residency leadership was most confident with resident understanding of quality documentation (80％) and less so with core measures (72％), billing/coding/RVUs (58％), and operations management tools (23％).CONCLUSIONS: While most EM residency programs integrate basic operational education related to documentation and billing/coding, a smaller number provide focused education on the day-to-day management and operations of the ED. Residency leadership perceives graduating resident understanding of operational management tools to be limited. All respondents value further resident curriculum development of ED operations and management.