↓ Skip to main content

Barriers in the implementation of the Resuscitation Guidelines: European survey of defibrillation techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers in the implementation of the Resuscitation Guidelines: European survey of defibrillation techniques
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0219-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paweł Krawczyk, Andrzej A. Kononowicz, Janusz Andres

Abstract

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines recommend providing chest compressions during defibrillator charging and using adhesive pads for defibrillation to increase the effectiveness of resuscitation. However, the most common defibrillation technique in each European country is unknown, as are the potential barriers in implementation of the guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the techniques of defibrillation procedures performed by professional European healthcare providers and to estimate how frequently adhesive pads are used. We sent an online questionnaire to the ERC National Representatives that contained 12 questions regarding the techniques of defibrillation and monitoring heart rhythm during cardiac arrest. We also evaluated the frequency and indications of manual paddles use. We collected questionnaires from 27 out of 33 invited ERC member countries. The response rate was 82 %. Seventeen (17/27; 63 %) declared the use of adhesive pads. The leading cause for not using adhesive pads was economic reason (9/17; 53 %). Some respondents declared resistance to using adhesive pads by healthcare providers or tradition connected with manual paddles use. We found three leading techniques of defibrillation with manual paddles: Charging paddles keeping them on the defibrillator during chest compressions being delivered (9/21; 43 %), Charging paddles keeping them on the patient chest during chest compressions being delivered (6/21; 29 %), Charging paddles on the patient chest without chest compressions (5/21; 24 %). Respondents from 11 countries declared the use of gel or electrode pastes during defibrillation with manual paddles. This study collected preliminary data showing how defibrillation is performed in Europe. It revealed the recommeded techniques underuse and identyfied barriers in the Resuscitation Guidelines implementation. The survey should be open to a wider group of respondents. in each country in future. There are limitations and barriers in the implementation of the defibrillation technique guidelines. There are still countries where the use of adhesive pads is low due to economic and traditional reasons. There is a need for further efforts focused on guidelines implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 25%
Student > Master 5 18%
Other 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 18%
Computer Science 2 7%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 7 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,364,458
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1,018
of 1,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,381
of 299,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#36
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.