Prehospital cardiac arrest resuscitation practices differ around the globe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major public health problem. This study aims to describe the international variations in the practices related to the initiation, termination, and refraining from resuscitation of adult patients (≥18 years) with a non-traumatic OHCA. Methods: An exploratory descriptive study was conducted using a cross-sectional online survey. The respondents were recruited using snowball sampling technique. Framework analysis was used to identify key themes in responses, with descriptive statistics summarising data trends. Results: The study collected responses from 59 countries. Our findings reveal that respondents from 59.3% of countries reported that they initiate resuscitation in all cases where the patients do not show obvious signs of irreversible death or do not have confirmed advance directives. Respondents from 15.3% of countries reported that once started, prehospital resuscitation attempts are not terminated. Prehospitally respondents from 20.3% of the countries reported that they rely exclusively on specific criteria to decide when to terminate resuscitation efforts while in 45.8%, these decisions are made at the discretion of the provider. Respondents from most countries (91.5%) reported that they refrain from resuscitation in the presence of obvious signs of irreversible death. Respondents from 57.6% of countries, reported that they refrained from resuscitation if the patient had a confirmed do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonaryresuscitation (DNACPR), while 15.3% mentioned staff safety as a reason to abstain from attempting resuscitation. Conclusion: This study reveals global variation in EMS resuscitation practices, reflecting disparities in resources, healthcare infrastructure, EMS system design, community acceptability given cultural and societal norms, and legislation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".