Association Between Hospital Recognition for Resuscitation Guideline Adherence and Rates of Survival for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Khera R, Tang Y, Link MS, Krumholz HM, Girotra S, Chan PS. Association Between Hospital Recognition for Resuscitation Guideline Adherence and Rates of Survival for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes. 2019 Mar 1; 12(3):e005429.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

Background Hospitals participating in the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry receive an award for high rates of adherence to quality metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to evaluate whether awards based on these quality metrics can be considered a proxy for performance on cardiac arrest survival. Methods and Results Among 195 hospitals with continuous participation in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation between 2012 and 2015, we identified 78 that received an award (Gold or Silver) for = 85% compliance for all 4 metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest-time to chest compressions, = 1 minute; time to defibrillation, = 2 minutes; device confirmation of endotracheal tube placement; and a monitored/witnessed arrest-for at least 12 consecutive months during 2014 to 2015. Award hospitals had higher cardiac arrest volumes than nonaward hospitals but otherwise had similar site characteristics. During 2014 to 2015, award hospitals had higher rates of return of spontaneous circulation for in-hospital cardiac arrest than nonaward hospitals (median [interquartile range], 71% [64%-77%] versus 66% [59%-74%]; Spearman ?, 0.19; P = 0.009). However, rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge at award hospitals (median, 25% [interquartile range, 22%-30%]) were similar to nonaward hospitals (median, 24% [interquartile range, 12%-27%]; Spearman ?, 0.13; P = 0.06). Among hospitals in the best tertile for survival to discharge in 2014 to 2015, 55.4% (36/65) did not receive an award, with poor discrimination of high-performing hospitals by award status (C statistic, 0.53). Similarly, there was only a weak association between hospitals' award status in 2014 to 2015 and their rates of survival to discharge in the preceding 2-year period (Spearman ?, 0.16; P = 0.03). Conclusions The current recognition mechanism within a national registry for in-hospital cardiac arrest captures hospital performance on return of spontaneous circulation but is not well correlated with survival to discharge. This suggests that current awards for resuscitation quality may not adequately capture hospital performance on overall survival-the outcome of greatest interest to patients.