METHODS: A 4-stage modified Delphi consensus method was used to engage 32 PEC experts from 12 Asian countries. Participants voted on 32 elements identified from a prior scoping review, focus group discussions, and survey. Each round of voting was conducted through an anonymous, web-based application and followed by face-to-face group discussions. The first two rounds aimed to answer, "Is the element important and feasible in a low resource setting?" The last two stages aimed to answer "Should this element be prioritized as core in the tool?" A thematic analysis of the recorded and transcribed discussions was used to identify participants' rationale for prioritization.
RESULTS: After four rounds of voting, 12 elements were identified as core elements: (1) dispatch assisted instructions, (2) protocols for screening, triage and destination, (3) medical direction, (4) standardized training programs, (5) minimum ambulance standards, (6) operational metrics, (7) quality assurance, (8) operational safety protools, (9) essential patient care documentation, (10) medical records management, (11) layperson awareness and education and (12) universal access emergency number. However, the participants decided to include all 32 elements in the tool grouped into broader categories by percent agreement for a tiered approach for early, intermediate, and advanced PEC systems. Rationales for prioritization included a need for focus on basic infrastructure and building resilience in resource-stretched systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Through a Delphi consensus process, stakeholders identified core elements for PEC systems in low resource settings. These findings will inform the development of a tool for quality assurance and monitoring in low resource settings in South and Southeast Asian countries.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: We found notable variations in characteristics and state of DACPR implementation between PAROS DS's. These findings will lay the groundwork for future DS and DACPR studies in the PAROS network.
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]).
CONCLUSION: We evaluated the impact of a DA-CPR program across heterogeneous EMS systems and demonstrated that a comprehensive DA-CPR program had the most impact on BCPR and favorable neurological outcome.