Adult Basic Life Support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations on basic life support summarizes evidence evaluations performed for 22 topics that were prioritized by the Basic Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The evidence reviews include 16 systematic reviews, 5 scoping reviews, and 1 evidence update. Per agreement within the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, new or revised treatment recommendations were only made after a systematic review. Systematic reviews were performed for the following topics: dispatch diagnosis of cardiac arrest, use of a firm surface for CPR, sequence for starting CPR (compressions-airway-breaths versus airway-breaths-compressions), CPR before calling for help, duration of CPR cycles, hand position during compressions, rhythm check timing, feedback for CPR quality, alternative techniques, public access automated external defibrillator programs, analysis of rhythm during chest compressions, CPR before defibrillation, removal of foreign-body airway obstruction, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, drowning, and harm from CPR to victims not in cardiac arrest. The topics that resulted in the most extensive task force discussions included CPR during transport, CPR before calling for help, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, feedback for CPR quality, and analysis of rhythm during chest compressions. After discussion of the scoping reviews and the evidence update, the task force prioritized several topics for new systematic reviews.

2019 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the third annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the role of cardiac arrest centers and dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults and children, vasopressors in adults, advanced airway interventions in adults and children, targeted temperature management in children after cardiac arrest, initial oxygen concentration during resuscitation of newborns, and interventions for presyncope by first aid providers. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of the evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence to Decision Framework Highlights sections. The task forces also listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Resuscitation Education Science: Educational Strategies to Improve Outcomes From Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

The formula for survival in resuscitation describes educational efficiency and local implementation as key determinants in survival after cardiac arrest. Current educational offerings in the form of standardized online and face-to-face courses are falling short, with providers demonstrating a decay of skills over time. This translates to suboptimal clinical care and poor survival outcomes from cardiac arrest. In many institutions, guidelines taught in courses are not thoughtfully implemented in the clinical environment. A current synthesis of the evidence supporting best educational and knowledge translation strategies in resuscitation is lacking. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we provide a review of the literature describing key elements of educational efficiency and local implementation, including mastery learning and deliberate practice, spaced practice, contextual learning, feedback and debriefing, assessment, innovative educational strategies, faculty development, and knowledge translation and implementation. For each topic, we provide suggestions for improving provider performance that may ultimately optimize patient outcomes from cardiac arrest.

2017 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations Summary.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a near-continuous review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation science that replaces the previous 5-year cyclic batch-and-queue approach process. This is the first of an annual series of International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations summary articles that will include the cardiopulmonary resuscitation science reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation in the previous year. The review this year includes 5 basic life support and 1 pediatric Consensuses on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Each of these includes a summary of the science and its quality based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force members are provided in Values and Preferences sections. Finally, the task force members have prioritized and listed the top 3 knowledge gaps for each population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question.

Measuring Nurse Leaders' and Direct Care Nurses' Perceptions of a Healthy Work Environment in Acute Care Settings, Part 3: Healthy Work Environment Scales for Nurse Leaders and Direct Care Nurses.

BACKGROUND: Survey items on the Healthy Work Environment Scales (HWES) for nurse leaders (NLs) and direct care nurses (DCNs) were developed using statements from 2 qualitative research studies conducted in a healthcare system. PURPOSE: The purposes of 2 quantitative studies were to develop items on the HWES for NLs and DCNs, to assess the validity and reliability of these new tools, and to describe the NLs and DCNs perceptions of a healthy work environment (HWE) using nonexperimental descriptive designs. METHODS: Each research study had 2 separate phases. In phase 1 of the studies, NLs and DCNs assigned each item to 1 of the 8 characteristics of an HWE to assess face validity. Content validity was determined by calculating the scale content validity and item content validity indices. Based on these results, the items were revised or deleted to obtain version 3 of both tools. In phase 2 of the studies, principal component analysis (PCA) assessed the validity of the tools, Cronbach's α served as the test for reliability, and the NLs and DCNs perceptions of an HWE were measured. RESULTS: Samples included 314 subjects for the HWES for NL study and 986 subjects for the HWES for DCN study. Principal component analysis for the HWES for NLs (version 3) revealed 40 items comprising 4 components, and PCA for the HWES for DCNs (version 3) revealed 39 items comprising 5 components. Internal consistencies of the tools were 0.974 and 0.957, respectively. Based on the findings of these studies, the tools demonstrated promising psychometric properties to measure a HWE in acute care settings.

Better Nurse Staffing and Nurse Work Environments Associated With Increased Survival of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although nurses are the most likely first responders to witness an in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and provide treatment, little research has been undertaken to determine what features of nursing are related to cardiac arrest outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between nurse staffing, nurse work environments, and IHCA survival. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of data from: (1) the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation database; (2) the University of Pennsylvania Multi-State Nursing Care and and Patient Safety; and (3) the American Hospital Association annual survey. Logistic regression models were used to determine the association of the features of nursing and IHCA survival to discharge after adjusting for hospital and patient characteristics. SUBJECTS: A total of 11,160 adult patients aged 18 and older between 2005 and 2007 in 75 hospitals in 4 states (Pennsylvania, Florida, California, and New Jersey). RESULTS: Each additional patient per nurse on medical-surgical units was associated with a 5% lower likelihood of surviving IHCA to discharge (odds ratio=0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.99). Further, patients cared for in hospitals with poor work environments had a 16% lower likelihood of IHCA survival (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.99) than patients cared for in hospitals with better work environments. CONCLUSIONS: Better work environments and decreased patient-to-nurse ratios on medical-surgical units are associated with higher odds of patient survival after an IHCA. These results add to a large body of literature suggesting that outcomes are better when nurses have a more reasonable workload and work in good hospital work environments. Improving nurse working conditions holds promise for improving survival following IHCA.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: [corrected] improving cardiac resuscitation outcomes both inside and outside the hospital: a consensus statement from the American Heart Association.

The "2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care" increased the focus on methods to ensure that high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed in all resuscitation attempts. There are 5 critical components of high-quality CPR: minimize interruptions in chest compressions, provide compressions of adequate rate and depth, avoid leaning between compressions, and avoid excessive ventilation. Although it is clear that high-quality CPR is the primary component in influencing survival from cardiac arrest, there is considerable variation in monitoring, implementation, and quality improvement. As such, CPR quality varies widely between systems and locations. Victims often do not receive high-quality CPR because of provider ambiguity in prioritization of resuscitative efforts during an arrest. This ambiguity also impedes the development of optimal systems of care to increase survival from cardiac arrest. This consensus statement addresses the following key areas of CPR quality for the trained rescuer: metrics of CPR performance; monitoring, feedback, and integration of the patient's response to CPR; team-level logistics to ensure performance of high-quality CPR; and continuous quality improvement on provider, team, and systems levels. Clear definitions of metrics and methods to consistently deliver and improve the quality of CPR will narrow the gap between resuscitation science and the victims, both in and out of the hospital, and lay the foundation for further improvements in the future.

Views of research ethics committee members on end-of-participation communications for trial participants who stop taking part: a cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Giving information to trial participants who stop taking part could support them through what can be a difficult process. We previously developed guidance around the ethical acceptability of such information provision, and about how trialists can develop suitable communication materials. There is limited evidence about what research ethics committees think of this issue, and limited guidance about what level of oversight they should have over the proposed communications, or post-consent participant communications generally. We conducted a survey of UK ethics committee members to address these points. METHODS: The survey was co-developed by public contributors and trialists who had previously worked together on the communications guidance. We asked respondents if they agreed with the general idea of informing participants who stop taking part, if they had ever been requested to review similar communications, and what level of ethics committee review they might recommend. The survey was primarily conducted online. It was reviewed by three ethics committee members before finalisation and shared directly with all UK ethics committee members. We analysed quantitative questions descriptively and used inductive analysis for open questions to identify common themes. RESULTS: Ninety-one ethics committee members participated (nearly 10% of all UK members). The sample was similar to reported data about all members in terms of several personal characteristics. Most respondents (83%) agreed with our project's rationale. Only 23% of respondents reported having been asked to review an end-of-participation information sheet before. Respondents gave various answers about the level of ethics committee review required, but most supported a relatively proportionate review process. Common concerns were about the risk of coercion or making participants feel pressured. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey suggests that ethics committee members generally support providing information to trial participants who stop taking part, if risks to participants are mitigated. We believe our guidance already addresses the main concerns raised. Our respondents' lack of prior experience with end-of-participation information sheets suggests that participants are not getting information they want or need when they stop participating. Our results help clarify how ethics committee should oversee post-consent participant communications, but further guidance from research regulators could be helpful.

How can we support research participants who stop taking part? Communications guidance developed through public-researcher collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Research study participants can stop taking part early, in various circumstances. Sometimes this experience can be stressful. Providing participants with the information they want or need when they stop could improve participants' experiences, and may benefit individual studies' objectives and research in general. A group of public contributors and researchers at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, aimed to develop a communication template and researcher guidance. This would address how to provide information sensitively around the time when participants stop or significantly reduce their level of participation. METHODS: The project lead used scoping review methods to identify relevant prior evidence and derive a list of potential information topics to communicate to participants who stop taking part. The topic list was reviewed by research professionals and public contributors before finalisation. Further public contributors were identified from a range of networks. The contributors formed a 'development group', to work on the detail of the planned resources, and a larger 'review group' to review the draft output before finalisation. The involvement was planned so that the development group could shape the direction and pace of the work. RESULTS: The literature review identified 413 relevant reports, resulting in 94 information topics. The review suggested that this issue has not been well explored previously. Some evidence suggested early-stopping participants are sometimes excluded from important communications (such as study results) without clear justification. The development group agreed early to focus on guidance with reusable examples rather than a template. We took time to explore different perspectives and made decisions by informal consensus. Review group feedback was broadly positive but highlighted the need to improve resource navigability, leading to its final online form. CONCLUSIONS: We co-developed a resource to provide support to research participants who stop taking part. A strength of this work is that several of the public contributors have direct lived experience of stopping research participation. We encourage others to review the resource and consider how they support these participants in their studies. Our work highlights the value of researchers and participants working together, including on complex and ethically challenging topics.

Participants in research sometimes stop taking part early. This can sometimes be stressful or difficult for them. Giving them information they want or need around that time could help them and the research. Public contributors and researchers worked together on this project. We wanted to help researchers get information to research participants who stop taking part. Some of the public contributors had experiences of stopping research participation early.The project lead first made a rough plan for the project, with public contributors' help. He left the plan open so the public contributors could help shape the project. The project lead searched for relevant information in published literature. This search showed there has not been much work before on how to help participants who stop taking part. He used the search results to make a list of topics that could be useful to give participants who stop taking part. He asked public contributors and researchers to review the list.Public contributors then joined one of two groups. A smaller group worked on the detail of the planned guidance. A larger group reviewed the draft guidance.The smaller group worked together to make the final guidance in six online meetings. The guidance includes example wording for others to use in their own participant communications. The reviewer group generally liked the guidance but had comments on making it easier to use. The final resource is available online and a link is in the references to this article.

Part 16: education, implementation, and teams: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

Optimizing the links in the Chain of Survival improves outcomes and saves lives. The use of evidence-based education and implementation strategies will allow organizations and communities to strengthen these links in the most effective and efficient manner.

Structural Heart Issues in Dextrocardia: Situs Type Matters.

Background: Patients who are diagnosed with dextrocardia, a rare congenital heart condition in which the heart points toward the right side of the chest, need their specific situs classification (eg, solitus, inversus, ambiguus) ascertained to optimize their care and outcomes. In this report, we discuss the perioperative anesthetic management of a patient presenting with dextrocardia. Case Report: A 44-year-old African American female with a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and diabetes mellitus type 2 was admitted for shortness of breath, dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea. The patient had been diagnosed with dextrocardia in 2003 at an outside hospital and was asymptomatic prior to this presentation. Chest x-ray revealed bilateral perihilar vascular congestion with bibasilar atelectasis and suspected small bilateral pleural effusions consistent with new-onset congestive heart failure. Preoperative 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography revealed an ostium secundum-type atrial septal defect (ASD) with mild left-to-right atrial shunting. The patient's ASD was repaired using a pericardial patch. Conclusion: The anesthetic management of patients presenting with dextrocardia is complex. Preoperative cardiac transthoracic echocardiography can identify cardiac lesions or aberrant anatomy associated with dextrocardia. Proper placement of electrocardiogram electrodes is necessary to avoid false-positive results for perioperative ischemia. Central line access must be adjusted to anatomic variations. Clinicians should have high suspicion for associated pulmonary hypertension and should limit sedatives preoperatively to minimize the cardiovascular effects of hypoxia and/or hypercarbia on the pulmonary vasculature. Finally, high clinical suspicion for respiratory complications should be maintained, as dextrocardia has been associated with respiratory complications secondary to primary ciliary dyskinesia in approximately 25% of patients.

Automated external defibrillators and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest.

CONTEXT: Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, but data on their effectiveness in hospitalized patients are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between AED use and survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Cohort study of 11,695 hospitalized patients with cardiac arrests between January 1, 2000, and August 26, 2008, at 204 US hospitals following the introduction of AEDs on general hospital wards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Survival to hospital discharge by AED use, using multivariable hierarchical regression analyses to adjust for patient factors and hospital site. RESULTS: Of 11,695 patients, 9616 (82.2%) had nonshockable rhythms (asystole and pulseless electrical activity) and 2079 (17.8%) had shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia). AEDs were used in 4515 patients (38.6%). Overall, 2117 patients (18.1%) survived to hospital discharge. Within the entire study population, AED use was associated with a lower rate of survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest compared with no AED use (16.3% vs 19.3%; adjusted rate ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.92; P < .001). Among cardiac arrests due to nonshockable rhythms, AED use was associated with lower survival (10.4% vs 15.4%; adjusted RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.83; P < .001). In contrast, for cardiac arrests due to shockable rhythms, AED use was not associated with survival (38.4% vs 39.8%; adjusted RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13; P = .99). These patterns were consistently observed in both monitored and nonmonitored hospital units where AEDs were used, after matching patients to the individual units in each hospital where the cardiac arrest occurred, and with a propensity score analysis. CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized patients with cardiac arrest, use of AEDs was not associated with improved survival.