Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in residential aged care facilities is independently associated with lower survival in Perth, Australia.

Aim: To compare out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) characteristics and outcomes between people aged ≥ 65 years who arrested in a residential aged care facility (RACF) versus a private residence in Perth, Australia. Methods: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of OHCA cases attended by emergency medical services (EMS) in Perth, January 2018-December 2021. OHCA patient and event characteristics and survival outcomes were compared via univariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between residency type and (i) return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at emergency department (ED) and (ii) 30-day survival. Results: A total of 435 OHCA occurred in RACFs versus 3,395 in private residences. RACF patients were significantly older (median age: 86 [IQR 79, 91] vs 78 [71, 85] years; p < 0.001), more commonly female (50.1% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001), bystander-witnessed arrests (34.9% vs 21.5%; p < 0.001), received bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (42.1% vs 28.6%; p < 0.001), had less shockable first monitored rhythms (4.0% vs 8.1%; p = 0.002) and more frequently had a "do not resuscitate" order identified (46.0% vs 13.6%; <0.001). Among those with EMS-attempted resuscitation or with defibrillation before EMS arrival, ROSC at ED and 30-day survival were significantly lower in the RACF group (6.2% vs 18.9%; p < 0.001 and 1.9% vs 7.7%; p < 0.001). The adjusted odds of ROSC at ED (aOR: 0.22 [95%CI: 0.10, 0.46]) and 30-day survival (aOR: 0.20 [95%CI 0.05, 0.92]) were significantly lower for RACF residents. Conclusion: RACF residency was an independent predictor of lower survival from OHCA, highlighting the importance of end-of-life planning for RACF residents.

'I think he's dead': A cohort study of the impact of caller declarations of death during the emergency call on bystander CPR.

BACKGROUND: In emergency calls for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), dispatchers are instrumental in the provision of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) through the recruitment of the caller. We explored the impact of caller perception of patient viability on initial recognition of OHCA by the dispatcher, rates of bystander CPR and early patient survival outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 422 emergency calls where OHCA was recognised by the dispatcher and resuscitation was attempted by paramedics. We used the call recordings, dispatch data, and electronic patient care records to identify caller statements that the patient was dead, initial versus delayed recognition of OHCA by the dispatcher, caller acceptance to perform CPR, provision of bystander-CPR, prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and ROSC on arrival at the Emergency Department. RESULTS: Initial recognition of OHCA by the dispatcher was more frequent in cases with a declaration of death by the caller than in cases without (92%, 73/79 vs. 66%, 227/343, p < 0.001). Callers who expressed such a view (19% of cases) were more likely to decline CPR (38% vs. 10%, adjusted odds ratio 4.59, 95% confidence interval 2.49-8.52, p < 0.001). Yet, 15% (12/79) of patients described as non-viable by callers achieved ROSC. CONCLUSION: Caller statements that the patient is dead are helpful for dispatchers to recognise OHCA early, but potentially detrimental when recruiting the caller to perform CPR. There is an opportunity to improve the rate of bystander-CPR and patient outcomes if dispatchers are attentive to caller statements about viability.

Caller resistance to perform cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in emergency calls for cardiac arrest.

A key objective of an emergency call for cardiac arrest is to recruit a bystander to perform cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) until the ambulance arrives. Emergency medical services worldwide work towards increasing the rate of bystander-CPR, and existing research has identified a number of physical barriers to the provision of bystander-CPR. Yet, little is known about the specific ways in which emergency callers resist recruitment to perform basic first-aid, sometimes in the absence of any physical obstacle. This study investigated 65 emergency calls for cardiac arrest received in Australia in 2014 and 2015, in which the callers initially resisted CPR. We used conversation analysis to examine callers' practices to resist recruitment and call-takers' practices to counter this resistance. We found that callers who resisted CPR typically provided an account. When callers accounted for their resistance on deontic grounds, they expressed that CPR was not a possible course of action (e.g. "I can't do it"). When callers provided an epistemic account, their justification was based on their knowledge or opinion (e.g. "I think it's too late"). Our findings suggest that epistemic resistance can be a barrier to bystander-CPR. We identified two practices used by call-takers to address caller resistance based on epistemics. Providing more context on the purpose of CPR (e.g. "this is to help him in the meantime") seemed effective in persuading callers to perform CPR. By contrast, aligning with the caller's epistemic and deontic rights (e.g. "it's up to you") did not seem effective in persuading callers.