The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Improving In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Process and Outcomes With Performance Debriefing
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent investigations have documented poor cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance in clinical practice. We hypothesized that a debriefing intervention using CPR quality data from actual in-hospital cardiac arrests (resuscitation with actual performance integrated debriefing [RAPID]) would improve CPR performance and initial patient survival. METHODS: Internal medicine residents at a university hospital attended weekly debriefing sessions of the prior week's resuscitations, between March 2006 and February 2007, reviewing CPR performance transcripts obtained from a CPR-sensing and feedback-enabled defibrillator. Objective metrics of CPR performance and initial return of spontaneous circulation were compared with a historical cohort in which a similar feedback-delivering defibrillator was used but without RAPID. RESULTS: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and outcome data from 123 patients resuscitated during the intervention period were compared with 101 patients in the baseline cohort. Compared with the control period, the mean (SD) ventilation rate decreased (13 [7]/min vs 18 [8]/min; P < .001) and compression depth increased (50 [10] vs 44 [10] mm; P = .001), among other CPR improvements. These changes correlated with an increase in the rate of return of spontaneous circulation in the RAPID group (59.4% vs 44.6%; P = .03) but no change in survival to discharge (7.4% vs 8.9%; P = .69). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of RAPID and real-time audiovisual feedback improved CPR quality compared with the use of feedback alone and was associated with an increased rate of return of spontaneous circulation. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation sensing and recording devices allow for methods of debriefing that were previously available only for simulation-based education; such methods have the potential to fundamentally alter resuscitation training and improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00228293.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A critical review of simulation‐based medical education research: 2003–2009
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x · Cited by 1,733
Eppich, W., & Cheng, A. (2015) · Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000072 · Cited by 1,106
Trends in survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest
Girotra, S., Nallamothu, B. K., Spertus, J. A., Li, Y., Krumholz, H. M., & Chan, P. S. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1109148 · Cited by 895
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015
Bossaert, L. L., Perkins, G. D., Askitopoulou, H., Raffay, V. I., Greif, R., Haywood, K. L., Mentzelopoulos, S. D., Nolan, J. P., Van de Voorde, P., Xanthos, T. T., et al. (2015) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.033 · Cited by 625
Greif (2020) · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.014 · Cited by 158
Chan, P. S., Krein, S. L., Tang, F., Iwashyna, T. J., Harrod, M., Kennedy, M., Lehrich, J., Kronick, S., Nallamothu, B. K., & for the American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators (2016) · JAMA Cardiology · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0073 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Edelson, D. P.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2008-05-26
- Volume
- 168
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1063
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131486844
- Cited by
- 479
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.