Location of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in the United States-Variability in Event Rate and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is a major public health problem with significant mortality. A better understanding of where IHCA occurs in hospitals (intensive care unit [ICU] versus monitored ward [telemetry] versus unmonitored ward) could inform strategies for reducing preventable deaths. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a retrospective study of adult IHCA events in the Get with the Guidelines-Resuscitation database from January 2003 to September 2010. Unadjusted analyses were used to characterize patient, arrest, and hospital-level characteristics by hospital location of arrest (ICU versus inpatient ward). IHCA event rates and outcomes were plotted over time by arrest location. Among 85 201 IHCA events at 445 hospitals, 59% (50 514) occurred in the ICU compared to 41% (34 687) on the inpatient wards. Compared to ward patients, ICU patients were younger (64±16 years versus 69±14; P<0.001) and more likely to have a presenting rhythm of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (21% versus 17%; P<0.001). In the ICU, mean event rate/1000 bed-days was 0.337 (±0.215) compared with 0.109 (±0.079) for telemetry wards and 0.134 (±0.098) for unmonitored wards. Of patients with an arrest in the ICU, the adjusted mean survival to discharge was 0.140 (0.037) compared with the unmonitored wards 0.106 (0.037) and telemetry wards 0.193 (0.074). More IHCA events occurred in the ICU compared to the inpatient wards and there was a slight increase in events/1000 patient bed-days in both locations. CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates vary based on location of IHCA. Optimizing patient assignment to unmonitored wards versus telemetry wards may contribute to improved survival after IHCA.

Choosing Wisely in Emergency Medicine: A National Survey of Emergency Medicine Academic Chairs and Division Chiefs.

OBJECTIVES: The Choosing Wisely campaign was launched in 2011 to promote stewardship of medical resources by encouraging patients and physicians to speak with each other regarding the appropriateness of common tests and procedures. Medical societies including the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) have developed lists of potentially low-value practices for their members to address with patients. No research has described the awareness or attitudes of emergency physicians (EPs) regarding the Choosing Wisely campaign. The study objective was to assess these beliefs among leaders of academic departments of emergency medicine (EM). METHODS: This was a Web-based survey of emergency department (ED) chairs and division chiefs at institutions with allopathic EM residency programs. The survey examined awareness of Choosing Wisely, anticipated effects of the program, and discussions of Choosing Wisely with patients and professional colleagues. Participants also identified factors they associated with the use of potentially low-value services in the ED. Questions and answer scales were refined using iterative pilot testing with EPs and health services researchers. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent (105/134) of invited participants responded to the survey. Eighty percent of respondents were aware of Choosing Wisely. A majority of participants anticipate the program will decrease costs of care (72% of respondents) and use of ED diagnostic imaging (69%) but will have no effect on EP salaries (94%) or medical-legal risks (65%). Only 45% of chairs have ever addressed Choosing Wisely with patients, in contrast to 88 and 82% who have discussed it with faculty and residents, respectively. Consultant-requested tests were identified by 97% of residents as a potential contributor to low-value services in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial majority of academic EM leaders in our study were aware of Choosing Wisely, but only slightly more than half could recall any ACEP recommendations for the program. Respondents familiar with Choosing Wisely anticipated generally positive effects, but chairs reported only infrequently discussing Choosing Wisely with patients. Future research should identify potentially low-value tests requested by consultants and objectively measure the utility and cost of these tests among ED patient populations.

Use of mobile apps: a patient-centered approach.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored what smartphone health applications (apps) are used by patients, how they learn about health apps, and how information about health apps is shared. METHODS: Patients seeking care in an academic ED were surveyed about the following regarding their health apps: use, knowledge, sharing, and desired app features. Demographics and health information were characterized by summary statistics. RESULTS: Of 300 participants, 212 (71%) owned smartphones, 201 (95%) had apps, and 94 (44%) had health apps. The most frequently downloaded health apps categories were exercise 46 (49%), brain teasers 30 (32%), and diet 23 (24%). The frequency of use of apps varied as six (6%) of health apps were downloaded but never used, 37 (39%) apps were used only a few times, and 40 (43%) health apps were used once per month. Only five apps (2%) were suggested to participants by health care providers, and many participants used health apps intermittently (55% of apps ≤ once a month). Participants indicated sharing information from 64 (59%) health apps, mostly within social networks (27 apps, 29%) and less often with health care providers (16 apps, 17%). CONCLUSIONS: While mobile health has experienced tremendous growth over the past few years, use of health apps among our sample was low. The most commonly used apps were those that had broad functionality, while the most frequently used health apps encompassed the topics of exercise, diet, and brain teasers. While participants most often shared information about health apps within their social networks, information was less frequently shared with providers, and physician recommendation played a small role in influencing patient use of health apps.

Age, sex, and hospital factors are associated with the duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospitalized patients who do not experience sustained return of spontaneous circulation.

BACKGROUND: Variability in the duration of attempted in­hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is high, but the factors influencing termination of CPR efforts are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the association between patient and hospital characteristics and CPR duration in 45 500 victims of in­hospital cardiac arrest who did not experience return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and who were enrolled in the Get With the Guidelines registry between 2001 and 2010. In a secondary analysis, we performed analyses in 46 168 victims of in­hospital cardiac arrest who experienced ROSC. We used ordered logistic regression to identify factors associated with CPR duration. Analyses were conducted by tertile of CPR duration (tertiles: ROSC group: 2 to 7, 8 to 17, and 18 to 120 minutes; no­ROSC group: 2 to 16, 17 to 26, 27 to 120 minutes). In those without ROSC, younger age (aged 18 to 40 versus >65 years; odds ratio [OR] 1.81; 95% CI 1.69 to 1.95; P<0.001), female sex (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; P=0.005), ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.42 to 1.58; P<0.001), and the need to place an invasive airway (OR 2.59; 95% CI 2.46 to 2.72; P<0.001) were associated with longer CPR duration. In those with ROSC, ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.93; P<0.001) and witnessed events (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; P<0.001) were associated with shorter duration. CONCLUSIONS: Age and sex were associated with attempted CPR duration in patients who do not experience ROSC after in­hospital cardiac arrest but not in those who experience ROSC. Understanding the mechanism of these interactions may help explain variability in outcomes for in­hospital cardiac arrest.

Hospital variation in survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is common and often fatal. However, the extent to which hospitals vary in survival outcomes and the degree to which this variation is explained by patient and hospital factors is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Within Get with the Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 135 896 index IHCA events at 468 hospitals. Using hierarchical models, we adjusted for demographics comorbidities and arrest characteristics (eg, initial rhythm, etiology, arrest location) to generate risk-adjusted rates of in-hospital survival. To quantify the extent of hospital-level variation in risk-adjusted rates, we calculated the median odds ratio (OR). Among study hospitals, there was significant variation in unadjusted survival rates. The median unadjusted rate for the bottom decile was 8.3% (range: 0% to 10.7%) and for the top decile was 31.4% (28.6% to 51.7%). After adjusting for 36 predictors of in-hospital survival, there remained substantial variation in rates of in-hospital survival across sites: bottom decile (median rate, 12.4% [0% to 15.6%]) versus top decile (median rate, 22.7% [21.0% to 36.2%]). The median OR for risk-adjusted survival was 1.42 (95% CI: 1.37 to 1.46), which suggests a substantial 42% difference in the odds of survival for patients with similar case-mix at similar hospitals. Further, significant variation persisted within hospital subgroups (eg, bed size, academic). CONCLUSION: Significant variability in IHCA survival exists across hospitals, and this variation persists despite adjustment for measured patient factors and within hospital subgroups. These findings suggest that other hospital factors may account for the observed site-level variations in IHCA survival.