Evaluating the Effectiveness of Dispatch‐assisted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Instructions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of agonal breathing during cardiac arrest (CA), its impact on the ability of 9-1-1 dispatchers to identify CA, and the impact of dispatch-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instructions on bystander CPR rates. METHODS: A before-after observational study enrolling out-of-hospital adult CA patients where resuscitation was attempted in a single city with basic life support with defibrillation/advanced life support tiered emergency medical services. Victim, caller, and system characteristics were measured during two successive nine-month periods before (control group) and after (intervention group) the introduction of dispatch-assisted CPR instructions. RESULTS: There were 529 CAs between July 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004. Victim characteristics were similar in the control (n = 295) and intervention (n = 234) period; mean age was 68.3 years; 66.7% were male; 50.1% of CAs were witnessed; call-to-vehicle stop was 6 minutes, 37 seconds; ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia occurred in 29.9%; and the survival rate was 4.0%. Dispatchers identified 56.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 48.9% to 63.0%) of CA cases; agonal breathing was present in 37.0% (95% CI = 30.1% to 43.9%) of all CA cases and accounted for 50.0% (95% CI = 39.1% to 60.9%) of missed diagnoses. Callers provided ventilations in 17.2% and chest compressions in 8.3% of cases as a result of the intervention. Long time intervals were observed between call to diagnosis (2 minutes, 38 seconds) and during ventilation instructions (2 minutes, 5 seconds). Bystander CPR rates increased from 16.7% in the control phase to 26.4% in the intervention phase (absolute rate, 9.7%; 95% CI = 8.5% to 11.3%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates an increase in bystander CPR rate after the introduction of dispatch-assisted CPR. Agonal breathing occurred frequently and had a negative impact on the recognition of CA. There were long time intervals between call initiation and diagnosis of CA and during mouth-to-mouth ventilation instructions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".