Evaluation of the Uptake of a Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Termination of Resuscitation Rule.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has focused on creation and validation of a basic life support rule for termination of resuscitation (TOR) in nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) to identify patients who will not be successfully resuscitated or will not have a favorable outcome. Although now widely implemented, translational research regarding in-field compliance with TOR criteria and barriers to use is scarce. OBJECTIVES: This project aimed to assess compliance rates, barriers to use, and effect on ambulance transport rates after implementing TOR criteria for OHCA. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients ≥ 18 years with OHCA. Data from regional Emergency Medical Services agencies were collected to determine TOR rule compliance for patients meeting criteria, barriers to use, and effect of a TOR rule on ambulance transport. RESULTS: There were 552 patients with OHCAs identified. Ninety-one patients met TOR criteria, with paramedics requesting TOR in 81 (89%) cases and physicians granting requests in 65 (80.2%) cases. Perceived barriers to TOR compliance included distraught families, nearby advanced-care paramedics, and unusual circumstances. Reasons for physician refusal of TOR requests included hospital proximity, patient not receiving epinephrine, and poor communication connection to paramedics. Total high priority transports decreased 15.6% after implementation of a TOR rule. CONCLUSIONS: The study found high compliance after implementation of a TOR rule and identified potentially addressable barriers to TOR use. Appropriate application of a TOR rule led to reduction in high-priority ambulance transports, potentially reducing futile use of health care resources and risk of ambulance motor vehicle collisions.

A prospective evaluation of the availability and utility of the Ambulance Call Record in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how often the Ambulance Call Record (ACR) was available to emergency department (ED) physicians and whether it contained information that changed the ED management of patients. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of adult patients transported to one of two tertiary care centre EDs. Physicians completed a data collection form for each patient regarding ACR availability and the perceived value of the ACR. This study began shortly after the implementation of a new electronic ACR (eACR) handover process (Round 1). To control for any confounding factors related to this new eACR handover process, the study was repeated 6 months after its implementation (Round 2). RESULTS: Total of 869 forms were collected: 545 in Round 1, and 324 in Round 2. The ACR was available at first physician assessment for 82 (15.7%) patients in Round 1, and 76 (24.4%) patients in Round 2 (Δ8.7%, 95% CI: 3.1%, 14.5%). The ACR was available at some point during patients' ED stay for 154 (28.9%) patients in Round 1, compared to 111 (34.5%) patients in Round 2 (Δ5.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%, 12.1%). When the ACR was available for a patient (n=265), physicians believed that information in the ACR changed their treatment plan in 76 (28.8%) cases. CONCLUSION: Physicians who review the ACR believe that the ACR contains relevant information that may influence patient management; however, physicians commonly manage patients without reviewing the ACR.