Methodology-dependent variation in documentation of outcome predictors in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

E. John Gallagher, G. Lombardi, P. Gennis, M. Treiber

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify variation in outcome predictor documentation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest associated with two different methods of data collection: concurrent questioning of personnel following a resuscitation attempt and archival report review. METHODS: All patients > or = 18 years old who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, verified using the New York City 911 telephone system, between October 1, 1990, and April 1, 1991, were eligible for inclusion. The authors reviewed the first 200 cases of presumed primary cardiac arrest involving a resuscitation attempt among 3,243 consecutive ambulance call reports for cardiac arrest occurring during the study period. This archival data set was compared with data for the same 200 cases gathered through direct interview of field personnel by trained paramedics. The two data sets had been compiled independently by different individuals, using the same data collection instrument, which conformed to the Utstein template. RESULTS: Comparison of the data obtained from ambulance records with the data obtained from interviews of prehospital personnel revealed several areas of variance. Of note was a significantly lower proportion of bystander-witnessed ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the data set gathered from written reports (7% vs 18%; 95% CI for the difference 4-18%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: differences in methods of collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest data are associated with a more than twofold variation in the reported incidences of witnessed cardiac arrests manifesting as VF. Methodology-dependent variation in this important "denominator" may produce substantially different estimates of survival within the same cohort of patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)423-429
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
Volume1
Issue number5
StatePublished - Sep 1994

Fingerprint

Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Heart Arrest
Documentation
Ambulances
Ventricular Fibrillation
Resuscitation
Interviews
Allied Health Personnel
Telephone
Survival
Incidence
Datasets

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

@article{cbf67bbe248846a5b490839cf187a17d,
title = "Methodology-dependent variation in documentation of outcome predictors in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To identify variation in outcome predictor documentation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest associated with two different methods of data collection: concurrent questioning of personnel following a resuscitation attempt and archival report review. METHODS: All patients > or = 18 years old who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, verified using the New York City 911 telephone system, between October 1, 1990, and April 1, 1991, were eligible for inclusion. The authors reviewed the first 200 cases of presumed primary cardiac arrest involving a resuscitation attempt among 3,243 consecutive ambulance call reports for cardiac arrest occurring during the study period. This archival data set was compared with data for the same 200 cases gathered through direct interview of field personnel by trained paramedics. The two data sets had been compiled independently by different individuals, using the same data collection instrument, which conformed to the Utstein template. RESULTS: Comparison of the data obtained from ambulance records with the data obtained from interviews of prehospital personnel revealed several areas of variance. Of note was a significantly lower proportion of bystander-witnessed ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the data set gathered from written reports (7{\%} vs 18{\%}; 95{\%} CI for the difference 4-18{\%}; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: differences in methods of collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest data are associated with a more than twofold variation in the reported incidences of witnessed cardiac arrests manifesting as VF. Methodology-dependent variation in this important {"}denominator{"} may produce substantially different estimates of survival within the same cohort of patients.",
author = "Gallagher, {E. John} and G. Lombardi and P. Gennis and M. Treiber",
year = "1994",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "423--429",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodology-dependent variation in documentation of outcome predictors in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

AU - Gallagher, E. John

AU - Lombardi, G.

AU - Gennis, P.

AU - Treiber, M.

PY - 1994/9

Y1 - 1994/9

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To identify variation in outcome predictor documentation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest associated with two different methods of data collection: concurrent questioning of personnel following a resuscitation attempt and archival report review. METHODS: All patients > or = 18 years old who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, verified using the New York City 911 telephone system, between October 1, 1990, and April 1, 1991, were eligible for inclusion. The authors reviewed the first 200 cases of presumed primary cardiac arrest involving a resuscitation attempt among 3,243 consecutive ambulance call reports for cardiac arrest occurring during the study period. This archival data set was compared with data for the same 200 cases gathered through direct interview of field personnel by trained paramedics. The two data sets had been compiled independently by different individuals, using the same data collection instrument, which conformed to the Utstein template. RESULTS: Comparison of the data obtained from ambulance records with the data obtained from interviews of prehospital personnel revealed several areas of variance. Of note was a significantly lower proportion of bystander-witnessed ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the data set gathered from written reports (7% vs 18%; 95% CI for the difference 4-18%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: differences in methods of collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest data are associated with a more than twofold variation in the reported incidences of witnessed cardiac arrests manifesting as VF. Methodology-dependent variation in this important "denominator" may produce substantially different estimates of survival within the same cohort of patients.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To identify variation in outcome predictor documentation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest associated with two different methods of data collection: concurrent questioning of personnel following a resuscitation attempt and archival report review. METHODS: All patients > or = 18 years old who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, verified using the New York City 911 telephone system, between October 1, 1990, and April 1, 1991, were eligible for inclusion. The authors reviewed the first 200 cases of presumed primary cardiac arrest involving a resuscitation attempt among 3,243 consecutive ambulance call reports for cardiac arrest occurring during the study period. This archival data set was compared with data for the same 200 cases gathered through direct interview of field personnel by trained paramedics. The two data sets had been compiled independently by different individuals, using the same data collection instrument, which conformed to the Utstein template. RESULTS: Comparison of the data obtained from ambulance records with the data obtained from interviews of prehospital personnel revealed several areas of variance. Of note was a significantly lower proportion of bystander-witnessed ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the data set gathered from written reports (7% vs 18%; 95% CI for the difference 4-18%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: differences in methods of collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest data are associated with a more than twofold variation in the reported incidences of witnessed cardiac arrests manifesting as VF. Methodology-dependent variation in this important "denominator" may produce substantially different estimates of survival within the same cohort of patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028506090&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028506090&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 423

EP - 429

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 5

ER -