Abstract Su504: The Impact of Locked Cabinets for Automated External Defibrillators (Aeds) on Cardiac Arrest Outcomes: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rapid defibrillation by the public with automated external defibrillators (AEDs) is critical to improving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survival. Concerns about theft, vandalism, and misuse of AEDs have led to the implementation of security measures, including the use of locked cabinets to house these devices in public areas. Aim: This scoping review aims to systematically explore the existing literature on the impact of locked cabinets for AEDs during emergencies. Methods: A search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL and Google Scholar (20 pages) was performed on May 25th 2024. Studies of any design (e.g., experimental, observational, qualitative) that evaluated the impact of locked cabinets on AED accessibility and effectiveness during emergencies. Data were charting was iterative, and after reading included studies the studies were grouped by the outcomes studied. Results: We screened 2,096 titles and found 10 relevant studies: 8 observational studies and 2 OHCA simulation studies. Four papers were only published as conference abstract and no studies reported on patient outcomes. Data were reported on varying numbers of AEDS (ranging from 39 to 31,938) which were located inside buildings and public spaces. Overall theft and vandalism rates were very low, with the majority of studies reporting rates of <2%. Although in some studies it was unclear if the AED was stolen, or whether it had been used in an emergency and not returned. The impact of locking AEDs in cabinets was reported in one study, and showed minimal impact on rates of theft and vandalism (0.34% vs. 0.12%, p< 0.01). Two OHCA simulation studies conducted at AED locations showed significantly slower AED retrieval when AEDs were locked away. One survey of first responders reported that 50% (25/50) were injured while accessing an AED, which required breaking glass. Conclusion: Rates of theft and vandalism of AEDs located in private and public locations are low overall and in unlocked cabinets. Further research is needed on the impact of locked AEDs on patient outcomes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".