Calculating real-world travel routes instead of straight-line distance in the community response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Bystanders
Geographical Information Systems
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Public-access Automated External Defibrillators
Volunteer first-responders
Journal
Resuscitation plus
ISSN: 2666-5204
Titre abrégé: Resusc Plus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101774410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
17
05
2021
revised:
06
10
2021
accepted:
07
10
2021
entrez:
24
11
2021
pubmed:
25
11
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Using straight-line distance to estimate the proximity of public-access Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) or volunteer first-responders to potential out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) does not reflect real-world travel distance. The difference between estimates may be an important consideration for bystanders and first-responders responding to OHCAs and may potentially impact patient outcome. To explore how calculating real-world travel routes instead of using straight-line distance estimates might impact the community response to OHCA. We mapped 4355 OHCA (01/04/2016-31/03/2017) and 2677 AEDs in London (UK), and 1263 OHCA (18/06/2017-17/06/2018) and 4704 AEDs in East Midlands (UK) using ArcGIS mapping software. We determined the distance from OHCAs to the nearest AED using straight-line estimates and real-world travel routes. We mapped locations of potential OHCAs (London: n = 9065, 20/09/2019-22/03/2020; East Midlands: n = 7637, 20/09/2019-17/03/2020) for which volunteer first-responders were alerted by the GoodSAM mobile-phone app, and calculated response distance using straight-line estimates and real-world travel routes. We created Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and calculated the Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine if travel distance predicted whether or not a responder accepted an alert. Real-world travel routes to the nearest AED were (median) 219 m longer (623 m vs 406 m) than straight-line estimates in London, and 211 m longer (568 m vs 357 m) in East Midlands. The identity of the nearest AED changed on 26% occasions in both areas when calculating real-world travel routes. GoodSAM responders' real-world travel routes were (median) 222 m longer (601 m vs 379 m) in London, and 291 m longer (814 m vs 523 m) in East Midlands. AUC statistics for both areas demonstrated that neither straight-line nor real-world travel distance predicted whether or not a responder accepted an alert. Calculating real-world travel routes increases the estimated travel distance and time for those responding to OHCAs. Calculating straight-line distance may overestimate the benefit of the community response to OHCA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Using straight-line distance to estimate the proximity of public-access Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) or volunteer first-responders to potential out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) does not reflect real-world travel distance. The difference between estimates may be an important consideration for bystanders and first-responders responding to OHCAs and may potentially impact patient outcome.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To explore how calculating real-world travel routes instead of using straight-line distance estimates might impact the community response to OHCA.
METHODS
METHODS
We mapped 4355 OHCA (01/04/2016-31/03/2017) and 2677 AEDs in London (UK), and 1263 OHCA (18/06/2017-17/06/2018) and 4704 AEDs in East Midlands (UK) using ArcGIS mapping software. We determined the distance from OHCAs to the nearest AED using straight-line estimates and real-world travel routes. We mapped locations of potential OHCAs (London: n = 9065, 20/09/2019-22/03/2020; East Midlands: n = 7637, 20/09/2019-17/03/2020) for which volunteer first-responders were alerted by the GoodSAM mobile-phone app, and calculated response distance using straight-line estimates and real-world travel routes. We created Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and calculated the Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine if travel distance predicted whether or not a responder accepted an alert.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Real-world travel routes to the nearest AED were (median) 219 m longer (623 m vs 406 m) than straight-line estimates in London, and 211 m longer (568 m vs 357 m) in East Midlands. The identity of the nearest AED changed on 26% occasions in both areas when calculating real-world travel routes. GoodSAM responders' real-world travel routes were (median) 222 m longer (601 m vs 379 m) in London, and 291 m longer (814 m vs 523 m) in East Midlands. AUC statistics for both areas demonstrated that neither straight-line nor real-world travel distance predicted whether or not a responder accepted an alert.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Calculating real-world travel routes increases the estimated travel distance and time for those responding to OHCAs. Calculating straight-line distance may overestimate the benefit of the community response to OHCA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34816140
doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100176
pii: S2666-5204(21)00101-6
pmc: PMC8592858
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100176Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s).
Références
Resuscitation. 2021 Apr;161:98-114
pubmed: 33773835
Heart. 2018 Aug;104(16):1339-1343
pubmed: 29760243
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2017 Oct 1;3(4):264-273
pubmed: 29044399
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Aug 23;68(8):836-45
pubmed: 27539176
Resuscitation. 2014 Nov;85(11):1444-9
pubmed: 25132473
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Jan 21;9(2):e014398
pubmed: 31928173
Resuscitation. 2015 Nov;96:53-8
pubmed: 26234893
Resuscitation. 2020 Nov;156:A35-A79
pubmed: 33098921
Circulation. 2013 Apr 30;127(17):1801-9
pubmed: 23553657
Resuscitation. 2018 Oct;131:101-107
pubmed: 30099121
Resuscitation. 2015 Nov;96:328-40
pubmed: 25438254
Resuscitation. 2017 Dec;121:123-126
pubmed: 29079507
BMJ Open. 2020 Mar 10;10(3):e034908
pubmed: 32161161