The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The implementation of cardiac arrest treatment recommendations in English acute NHS trusts: a national survey
Open accessAbstract
Purpose of the study: There are approximately 35 000 in-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK each year. Successful resuscitation requires integration of the medical science, training and education of clinicians and implementation of best practice in the clinical setting. In 2015, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) published its latest resuscitation treatment recommendations. It is currently unknown the extent to which these treatment recommendations have been successfully implemented in practice in English NHS acute hospital trusts. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey of English acute NHS trusts to assess the implementation of key ILCOR resuscitation treatment recommendations in relation to in-hospital cardiac arrest practice at English NHS acute hospital trusts. Results: Of 137 eligible trusts, 73 responded to the survey (response rate 53.3%). The survey identified significant variation in the implementation of ILCOR recommendations. In particular, the use of waveform capnography (n=33, 45.2%) and ultrasound (n=29, 39.7%) was often reported to be available only in specialist areas. Post-resuscitation debriefing occurs following every in-hospital cardiac arrest in few trusts (5.5%, n=4), despite a strong ILCOR recommendation. In contrast, participation in a range of quality improvement strategies such as the National Cardiac Arrest Audit (90.4%, n=66) and resuscitation equipment provision/audit (91.8%, n=67) were high. Financial restrictions were identified by 65.8% (n=48) as the main barrier to guideline implementation. Conclusion: Our survey found that ILCOR treatment recommendations had not been fully implemented in most English NHS acute hospital trusts. Further work is required to better understand barriers to implementation.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Response rates vary markedly across trials.
“Response rates vary markedly across trials. 288,308,309”
From European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions (2021) · cites this paper as [308]
The Results report a 53.3% response rate for this single survey. The Discussion says other health-professional surveys often report similar rates, but neither passage assesses whether response rates vary markedly across trials. Searches for variation in response rates across trials found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Nolan, 2014, Incidence and outcome of in-hospital cardiac arrest in the United Kingdom National ardiac Arrest Audit, Resuscitation, 85, 987, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
- Nolan, 2015, Part 1: executive summary: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations, Resuscitation, 95, e1, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.039 · DOI
- Hazinski, 2015, Part 1: executive summary. 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations, Circulation, 132, S2, 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000270 · DOI
- Morley, 2015, Part 2: evidence evaluation and management of conflicts of interest: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations, Resuscitation, 95, e33, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.040 · DOI
- Guyatt, 2011, GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, J Clin Epidemiol, 64, 380, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011 · DOI · Paper page
- Søreide, 2013, The formula for survival in resuscitation, Resuscitation, 84, 1487, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.07.020 · DOI
- Nikolaou, 2015, Part 5: acute coronary syndromes: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations, Resuscitation, 95, e121, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.043 · DOI
- Perkins, 2015, Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations, Resuscitation, 95, e43, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.041 · DOI
- Finn, 2015, Part 8: education, implementation, and teams: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations, Resuscitation, 95, e203, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.046 · DOI
- Soar, 2015, Part 4: advanced life support: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations, Resuscitation, 95, e71, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.042 · DOI
- Wolfe, 2014, Interdisciplinary ICU cardiac arrest debriefing improves survival outcomes, Crit Care Med, 42, 1688, 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000327 · DOI
- Couper, 2015, The system-wide effect of real-time audiovisual feedback and postevent debriefing for in-hospital cardiac arrest: the cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality improvement initiative, Crit Care Med, 43, 2321, 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001202 · DOI
- Couper, 2013, Debriefing to improve outcomes from critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Intensive Care Med, 39, 1513, 10.1007/s00134-013-2951-7 · DOI
- Couper, 2013, Debriefing after resuscitation, Curr Opin Crit Care, 19, 188, 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32835f58aa · DOI
- Ford, 2016, Management of cardiac arrest survivors in UK intensive care units: a survey of practice, J Intensive Care, 17, 117, 10.1177/1751143715615151 · DOI
- Turle, 2015, Availability and use of capnography for in-hospital cardiac arrests in the United Kingdom, Resuscitation, 94, 80, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.06.025 · DOI
- Binks, 2010, Therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest: implementation in UK intensive care units, Anaesthesia, 65, 260, 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06227.x · DOI
- Laver, 2006, Therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest: a survey of practice in intensive care units in the United Kingdom, Anaesthesia, 61, 873, 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04552.x · DOI
- Edelson, 2014, Hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation practice in the United States: a nationally representative survey, J Hosp Med, 9, 353, 10.1002/jhm.2174 · DOI · Paper page
- Tirkkonen, 2014, Cardiac arrest teams and medical emergency teams in Finland: a nationwide cross-sectional postal survey, Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 58, 420, 10.1111/aas.12280 · DOI · Paper page
- Dainty, 2013, Are the 2010 guidelines on cardiopulmonary resuscitation lost in translation? A call for increased focus on implementation science, Resuscitation, 84, 422, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.08.336 · DOI
- Cook, 2009, Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study, BMC Health Serv Res, 9, 160, 10.1186/1472-6963-9-160 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions
Mentzelopoulos, S. D., Couper, K., Voorde, P. V. D., Druwé, P., Blom, M., Perkins, G. D., Lulic, I., Djakow, J., Raffay, V., Lilja, G., et al. (2021) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.017 · Cited by 246
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Carberry, J., Couper, K., & Yeung, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Yeung, Joyce
- Venue
- Postgraduate Medical Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-04-25
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 1105
- Pages
- 653-659
- ISSN
- 0032-5473 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0756
- PMC
- PMC5740541
- OpenAlex
- W2609409937
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Postgraduate Medical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (PDF-2014-07-061, PDF-2015-08-109)
- University of Birmingham
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Keywords
- in-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation guidelines, guideline implementation, waveform capnography, quality improvement, resuscitation equipment, financial barriers, acute hospital trusts, English NHS
- MeSH terms
- United Kingdom, Heart Arrest, Hospitals, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, State Medicine, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Guideline Adherence, Quality Improvement
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
