METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive survey addressing population characteristics, DS structures and levels of service, state of DACPR implementation (including protocols and quality improvement programs) among PAROS DS's.

RESULTS: 9 DS's responded, representing a total of 23 dispatch centres from 9 countries that serve over 80 million people. Most PAROS DS's operate a tiered dispatch response, have implemented medical oversight, and tend to be staffed by dispatchers with a predominantly medical background. Almost all PAROS DS's have begun tracking key EMS indicators. 77.8% (n = 7) of PAROS DS's have introduced DACPR. Of the DS's that have rolled out DACPR, 71.4% (n = 5) provided instructions in over one language. All DS's that implemented DACPR and provided feedback to dispatchers offered feedback on missed OHCA recognition. The majority of DS's (83.3%; n = 5) that offered DACPR and provided feedback to dispatchers also implemented corrective feedback, while 66.7% (n = 4) offered positive feedback. Compression-only CPR was the standard instruction for PAROS DS's. OHCA recognition sensitivity varied widely in PAROS DS's, ranging from 32.6% (95% CI: 29.9-35.5%) to 79.2% (95% CI: 72.9-84.4%). Median time to first compression ranged from 120 s to 220 s.

METHODS: This was a three-arm, prospective, multi-national, population-based, community-level, implementation trial. Cases between January 2009 and June 2018 from the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study were included. Sites either implemented a comprehensive (with quality improvement tool) or a basic DA-CPR package, or served as controls. Primary outcome was survival-to-discharge/30th day post-arrest. Secondary outcomes were BCPR and favorable neurological outcome. A before-after comparison was made within each country; this before-after change was then compared across the three groups using logistic regression.

RESULTS: 170,687 cases were analyzed. Before-after comparison showed that survival to discharge was higher in the 'implementation' period in all three groups: comprehensive odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI; [1.0-1.19]); basic OR 1.14, 95% CI (1.08-1.2); and control OR 1.25, 95% CI (1.02-1.53). Comparing between groups, the comprehensive group had significantly higher change in BCPR (comprehensive vs control ratio of OR 1.86, 95% CI [1.66-2.09]; basic vs control ratio of OR 0.94, 95% CI [0.85-1.05]; and comprehensive vs basic ratio of OR 1.97, 95% CI [1.87-2.08]) and survival with favorable neurological outcome (comprehensive vs basic ratio of OR 1.2, 95% CI [1.04-1.39]).