Search

Background: The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) released new guidelines on resuscitation in 2015. For the first time, the guidelines included a separate chapter on first aid for laypersons. We analysed the current major Danish national first aid books to identify potential inconsistencies between the current books and the new evidence-based first aid guidelines. Methods: We identified first aid books from all the first aid courses offered by major Danish suppliers. Based on the new ERC first aid guidelines, we developed a checklist of 26 items within 16 different categories to assess the content; this checklist was adapted following the principle of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive questioning. To assess the agreement between four raters, Fleiss' kappa test was used. Items that did not reach an acceptable kappa score were excluded. Results: We evaluated 10 first aid books used for first aid courses and published between 2009 and 2015. The content of the books complied with the new in 38% of the answers. In 12 of the 26 items, there was less than 50% consistency. These items include proximal pressure points and elevation of extremities for the control of bleeding, use of cervical collars, treatment for an open chest wound, burn dressing, dental avulsion, passive leg raising, administration of bronchodilators, adrenaline, and aspirin. Conclusions: Danish course material showed significant inconsistencies with the new evidence-based first aid guidelines. The new knowledge from the evidence-based guidelines should be incorporated into revised and updated first aid course material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pre-hospital emergency care requires proper categorization of emergency calls and assessment of emergency priority levels by the medical dispatchers. We investigated predictors for emergency call categorization as "unclear problem" in contrast to "symptom-specific" categories and the effect of categorization on mortality. Methods: Register-based study in a 2-year period based on emergency call data from the emergency medical dispatch center in Copenhagen combined with nationwide register data. Logistic regression analysis (N = 78,040 individuals) was used for identification of predictors of emergency call categorization as "unclear problem". Poisson regression analysis (N = 97,293 calls) was used for examining the effect of categorization as "unclear problem" on mortality. Results: "Unclear problem" was the registered category in 18% of calls. Significant predictors for "unclear problem" categorization were: age (odds ratio (OR) 1.34 for age group 76+ versus 18-30 years), ethnicity (OR 1.27 for non-Danish vs. Danish), day of week (OR 0.92 for weekend vs. weekday), and time of day (OR 0.79 for night vs. day). Emergency call categorization had no effect on mortality for emergency priority level A calls, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.09). For emergency priority level B calls, an association was observed, IRR 1.26 (95% CI 1.18-1.36). Discussions: The results shed light on the complexity of emergency call handling, but also implicate a need for further improvement. Educational interventions at the dispatch centers may improve the call handling, but also the underlying supportive tools are modifiable. The higher mortality rate for patients with emergency priority level B calls with "unclear problem categorization" could imply lowering the threshold for dispatching a high level ambulance response when the call is considered unclear. On the other hand a "benefit of the doubt" approach could hinder the adequate response to other patients in need for an ambulance as there is an increasing demand and limited resources for ambulance services. Conclusions: Age, ethnicity, day of week and time of day were significant predictors of emergency call categorization as "unclear problem". "Unclear problem" categorization was not associated with mortality for emergency priority level A calls, but a higher mortality was observed for emergency priority level B calls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The medical dispatcher plays an essential role as part of the first link in the Chain of Survival, by recognising the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) during the emergency call, dispatching the appropriate first responder or emergency medical services response, performing dispatcher assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and referring to the nearest automated external defibrillator. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare studies reporting recognition of OHCA patients during emergency calls. Methods: This systematic review was reported in compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 4 November 2015. Observational studies, reporting the proportion of clinically confirmed OHCAs that was recognised during the emergency call, were included. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Data were extracted and the risk of bias within studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Results: A total of 3,180 abstracts were screened for eligibility and 53 publications were assessed in full-text. We identified 16 studies including 6,955 patients that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. The studies reported recognition of OHCA with a median sensitivity of 73.9% (range: 14.1-96.9%). The selection of study population and the definition of "recognised OHCA" (threshold for positive test) varied greatly between the studies, resulting in high risk of bias. Heterogeneity in the studies precluded meta-analysis. Conclusion: Among the 16 included studies, we found a median sensitivity for OHCA recognition of 73.9% (range: 14.1-96.9%). However, great heterogeneity between study populations and in the definition of "recognised OHCA", lead to insufficient comparability of results. Uniform and transparent reporting is required to ensure comparability and development towards best practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]