PubMed · 15655975
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Hartley. 1994. Politically correct CPR.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15655975/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
INTRODUCTION: Construction of an effective in-hospital resuscitation programme is challenging. To document and analyse resuscitation skills assessment must provide reliable data. Benchmarking with a hospital having documented excellent results of in-hospital resuscitation is beneficial. The purpose of this study was to assess the resuscitation skills to facilitate construction of an educational programme. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nurses working in a university hospital Jorvi, Espoo (n=110), Finland and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg (n=40), Sweden were compared. The nurses were trained in the same way in both hospitals except for the defining and teaching of leadership applied in Sahlgrenska. Jorvi nurses are not trained to be, nor do they act as, leaders in a resuscitation situation. Their cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills using an automated external defibrillator (AED) were assessed using Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) which was build up as a case of cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation (VF) as the initial rhythm. The subjects were tested in pairs, each pair alone. Group-working skills were registered. RESULTS: All Sahlgrenska nurses, but only 49% of Jorvi nurses, were able to defibrillate. Seventy percent of the nurses working in the Sahlgrenska hospital (mean score 35/49) and 27% of the nurses in Jorvi (mean score 26/49) would have passed the OSCE test. Statistically significant differences were found in activating the alarm (P<0.001), activating the AED without delay (P<0.01), setting the lower defibrillation electrode correctly (P<0.001) and using the correct resuscitation technique (P<0.05). The group-working skills of Sahlgrenska nurses were also significantly better than those of Jorvi nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of CPR-D skills gave valuable information for further education in both hospitals. Defining and teaching leadership seems to improve resuscitation performance.
BACKGROUND: Ventricular fibrillation (VF) is treated optimally with a defibrillation shock shortly after patient collapse, but may benefit from initial cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if the shock is delayed. An objective measure of potential responsiveness to defibrillation could help decide optimal initial therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: a new electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis algorithm was compared with response interval (call-to-shock) for prediction of patient outcome in a population of 87 VF patients in the Rochester, Minnesota area. In a retrospective analysis, both call-to-shock interval (p = 0.009) and ECG analysis (p < 0.001) predicted neurologically intact survival, with ECG analysis the stronger predictor (p = 0.034). When applied to advising initial patient treatment, ECG analysis compared favorably with the call-to-shock interval. Using a 7 min call-to-shock time criterion, 69% of patients would receive shocks first treatment using ECG analysis versus 67% using the call-to-shock interval (p = NS), 94% of survivors would retain successful shocks first treatment versus 85% (p = NS), and 48% of non-survivors receive alternate CPR-first treatment versus 45% (p = NS). Similarly, no significant differences were observed between ECG analysis and call-to-shock interval using an 8 min criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Both call-to-shock interval and a real-time ECG analysis are predictive of patient outcome. The ECG analysis is more predictive of neurologically intact survival. Moreover, the ECG analysis is dependent only upon the patient's condition at the time of treatment, with no need for knowledge of the response interval, which may be difficult to estimate at the time of treatment.
BACKGROUND: The classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) has been demonstrated to be effective for airway management during neonatal resuscitation. However, high airway pressures, when required, cannot be achieved with this device. A neonatal prototype of the LMA-ProSeal (PLMA), which might improve the oropharyngeal leak pressure, has recently been produced. The airway sealing pressures of the cLMA and the PLMA were compared in a neonatal manikin. METHODS: A neonatal PLMA and a neonatal cLMA were positioned at random in a neonatal intubation manikin (Neonate Airway Trainer; Laerdal, Norway). A Dräeger pressure controlled ventilator (Dräeger 8000; Dräegerwerk AG, Germany) was connected to the airway tubes and increasing inspiratory pressures (from 10 to 40 cm H2O) of positive pressure ventilation applied. The peak and the mean airway pressures obtained with each device were recorded. RESULTS: The airway pressures obtained with PLMA were significantly higher than those obtained with cLMA (p < 0.01) at levels of positive pressure ventilation of 25, 30, 35 and 40 cm H2O. CONCLUSIONS: The neonatal PLMA allows higher airway pressure ventilation than the cLMA, in a neonatal intubation manikin. If confirmed clinically, this may have important implications during neonatal resuscitation when high airway pressures are required.