PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

PAD Investigators

Publications and source records attributed to PAD Investigators.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Stress reactions and perceived difficulties of lay responders to a medical emergency.

BACKGROUND: Bystander CPR rates remain low. One reason may be that the thought of responding to an emergency is so stressful that it decreases the willingness of laypersons to respond. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the amount of stress experienced by lay responders to a medical emergency and to identify barriers that may have impeded their response to the event. METHODS: Responses from 1243 laypersons responding to an emergency during the Public Access Defibrillation Trial were analyzed in a mixed methods study. Stress related to the event was recorded using a 0 (none) to 5 (severe) scale. Qualitative responses to the question of "What was most difficult?" about the event were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Reported stress levels were low overall (mean 1.2, median 1.0). Laypersons responding to an emergency presumed to be a cardiac arrest had higher stress than those involved in other events (median 2.0 versus 1.0). Stress levels were higher in residential than in public settings (mean 1.41, median 1.0 versus mean 1.13, median 1.0). Those who fit a certain profile (females, non-native English speakers) reported statistically higher stress levels than others. A total of 614 qualitative responses were studied and aggregated into four major categories of difficulty: practical issues; characteristics of the victim; interpersonal issues; thoughts and feelings of the lay responder. Most difficulties were in the category of practical issues. CONCLUSIONS: Among these study volunteer lay responders, low levels of stress were reported. Incorporating descriptions of the difficulties experienced by lay responders in CPR/AED training curricula may make courses more realistic and useful.

Adult↗

Adverse events associated with lay emergency response programs: the public access defibrillation trial experience.

UNLABELLED: The adverse event (AE) profile of lay volunteer CPR and public access defibrillation (PAD) programs is unknown. We undertook to investigate the frequency, severity, and type of AE's occurring in widespread PAD implementation. DESIGN: A randomized-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: One thousand two hundred and sixty public and residential facilities in the US and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: On-site, volunteer, lay personnel trained in CPR only compared to CPR plus automated external defibrillators (AEDs). INTERVENTION: Persons experiencing possible cardiac arrest receiving lay volunteer first response with CPR+AED compared with CPR alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: An AE is defined as an event of significance that caused, or had the potential to cause, harm to a patient or volunteer, or a criminal act. AE data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Twenty thousand three hundred and ninety six lay volunteers were trained in either CPR or CPR+AED. One thousand seven hundred and sixteen AEDs were placed in units randomized to the AED arm. There were 26,389 exposure months. Only 36 AE's were reported. There were two patient-related AEs: both patients experienced rib fractures. There were seven volunteer-related AE's: one had a muscle pull, four experienced significant emotional distress and two reported pressure by their employee to participate. There were 27 AED-related AEs: 17 episodes of theft involving 20 devices, three involved AEDs that were placed in locations inaccessible to the volunteer, four AEDs had mechanical problems not affecting patient safety, and three devices were improperly maintained by the facility. There were no inappropriate shocks and no failures to shock when indicated (95% upper bound for probability of inappropriate shock or failure to shock = 0.0012). CONCLUSIONS: AED use following widespread training of lay-persons in CPR and AED is generally safe for the volunteer and the patient. Lay volunteers may report significant, usually transient, emotional stress following response to a potential cardiac arrest. Within the context of this prospective, randomized multi-center study, AEDs have an exceptionally high safety profile when used by trained lay responders.

Canada↗

Predictors of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator skill retention.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist regarding the retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) skills over time in relationship to characteristics of lay volunteer responders, training, or risk of exposure to victims. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics associated with adequate CPR and AED skill retention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Skill retention was tested 3 to 18 months (mean 6.9 +/- 3.5 months) after initial training. Instructors judged adequacy of performance of essential CPR or AED skills and provided an overall assessment (adequate/inadequate), which was used as the outcome. Data on 7261 laypersons trained in CPR (4358 also received AED training) in 24 sites across the United States and Canada were available from the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial. Characteristics of the volunteers, classes, and facilities were evaluated as predictors of performance adequacy. Adjusting for site, intervention assignment (CPR-only or CPR + AED), and time since initial training, volunteer characteristics associated with adequate CPR performance were age (OR 0.78 per 10-year increment), male sex (OR 1.44), minority (OR 0.62), married (OR 1.35), prior emergency experience (OR 1.66), prior CPR class (OR 1.68), prior advanced training (OR 1.59), and extracurricular CPR training (OR 1.91) (all P < .05). Characteristics associated with AED performance included age (OR 0.69), college education (OR 1.34), and native language other than English (OR 0.51) (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Certain subgroups of lay volunteers may need targeted outreach programs in CPR and AED use, classes with longer training time, more practice, or more intense retraining to maintain their CPR and/or AED skills.

Adult↗

Modeling instructor preferences for CPR and AED competence estimation.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) skills competency can be tested using a checklist of component skills, individually graded "pass" or "fail." Scores are typically calculated as the percentage of skills passed, but may differ from an instructor's overall subjective assessment of simulated CPR or AED adequacy. OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate composite measures (methods for scoring checklists) that reflect instructors' subjective assessments of CPR or AED skills performance best. METHODS: Associations between instructor assessment and lay-volunteer skill performance were made using 6380 CPR and 3313 AED skill retention tests collected in the Public Access Defibrillation Trial. Checklists included CPR skills (e.g., calling 911, administering compressions) and AED skills (e.g., positioning electrodes, shocking within 90 s of AED arrival). The instructor's subjective overall assessment (adequate/inadequate) of CPR performance (perfusion) or AED competence (effective shock) was compared to composite measures. We evaluated the traditional composite measure (assigning equal weights to individual skills) and several nontraditional composite measures (assigning variable weights). Skills performed out of sequence were further weighted from 0% (no credit) to 100% (full credit). RESULTS: Composite measures providing full credit for skills performed out of sequence and down-weighting process skills (e.g., calling 911, clearing oneself from the AED) had the strongest association with the instructor's subjective assessment; the traditional CPR composite measure had the weakest association. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that instructors in public CPR and AED classes may tend to down-weight process skills and to excuse step sequencing errors when evaluating CPR and AED skills subjectively for overall proficiency. Testing methods that relate classroom performance to actual performance in the field and to clinical outcomes require further research.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗

Measuring survival rates from sudden cardiac arrest: the elusive definition.

BACKGROUND: Measuring survival from sudden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) is often used as a benchmark of the quality of a community's emergency medical service (EMS) system. The definition of OOH-CA survival rates depends both upon the numerator (surviving cases) and the denominator (all cases). PURPOSE: The purpose of the public access defibrillation (PAD) trial was to measure the impact on survival of adding an automated external defibrillator (AED) to a volunteer response system trained in CPR. This paper reports the definition of OOH-CA developed by the PAD trial investigators, and it evaluates alternative statistical methods used to assess differences in reported "survival." METHODS: Case surveillance was limited to the prospectively determined geographic boundaries of the participating trial units. The numerator in calculating a survival rate should include only those patients who survived an event but who otherwise would have died except for the application of some facet of emergency medical care-in this trial a defibrillatory shock. Among denominators considered were: total population of the study unit, all deaths within the study unit, and documented ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrests. The PAD classification focused upon cases that might have benefited from the early use of an AED, in addition to the likely benefit from early recognition of OOH-CA, early access of EMS, and early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Results of this classification system were used to evaluate the impact of the PAD definition on the distribution of cardiac arrest case types between CPR only and CPR + AED units. RESULTS: Potential OOH-CA episodes were classified into one of four groups: definite, probable, uncertain, or not an OOH-CA. About half of cardiac arrests in the PAD units were judged to be definite OOH-CA events and therefore potentially treatable with an AED. However, events that occurred in CPR-only units were less likely to be classified as definite or probable OOH-CA events than those in CPR + AED units (43% versus 55%, odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.07). The study retained sufficient power to permit a statistical analysis of the alternative hypothesis that the CPR + AED method results in twice as many survivors as a CPR-only approach. The result is critically dependent on the denominator used for calculating survival rates; but the analysis does not require a denominator as the numerators will have identical Poisson distributions (counts for rare events) under the null hypothesis since randomization distributes the risk of cardiac arrest evenly between the two arms. CONCLUSION: Reported OOH-CA rates and survival rates vary widely, depending upon the definitions applied to events. Rigorous assessment of treatments applied to improve survival can be obscured by inappropriate definitions. Large-scale randomized interventions designed to improve survival from OOH-CA can be evaluated based upon the absolute numbers of patients surviving, rather than a change in the proportion surviving.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗