The PulsePoint Respond mobile device application to crowdsource basic life support for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Challenges for optimal implementation

Steven C. Brooks, Graydon Simmons, Heather Worthington, Bentley J Bobrow, Laurie J. Morrison

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: PulsePoint Respond is a novel mobile device application that notifies citizens within 400. m (~1/4. mile) of a suspected cardiac arrest to facilitate resuscitation. Our objectives were to (1) characterize users, and (2) understand their behavior after being sent a notification. We sought to identify challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint-mediated bystander resuscitation. Methods: PulsePoint Respond users who sent a notification between 04/07/2012 and 06/16/2014 were invited to participate in an online survey. At the beginning of our study, PulsePoint Respond was active in more than 600 US communities. Results: There were 1274 completed surveys (response rate 1448/6777, 21.4%). Respondents were firefighters (28%), paramedics (18%), emergency medical technicians (9%), nurses (7%), MDs (1%), other health care professionals (12%), and non-health care professionals (42%). Of those who received a PulsePoint notification, only 23% (189/813) responded to the PulsePoint notification. Of those who responded, 28% (52/187) did not arrive on scene. Of those who did arrive on scene, only 32% (44/135) found a person unconscious and not breathing normally. Of those who arrived on scene prior to emergency medical services and found a cardiac arrest victim, 79% (11/14) performed bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Conclusions: Challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint Respond include technical aspects of the notifications (audio volume, precision of location information), excessive activation radii, insufficient user density in the community, and suboptimal cardiac arrest notification specificity. PulsePoint Respond has the potential to improve the community response to cardiac arrest, with 80% of responders attempting basic life support when they found a cardiac arrest victim prior to EMS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)20-26
Number of pages7
JournalResuscitation
Volume98
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Crowdsourcing
Mobile Applications
Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Heart Arrest
Equipment and Supplies
Resuscitation
Emergency Medical Technicians
Firefighters
Allied Health Personnel
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Emergency Medical Services
Respiration
Nurses
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Automated external defibrillators
  • Bystanders
  • Cardiac arrest
  • Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • Crowdsourcing
  • Mobile devices

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Emergency
  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

The PulsePoint Respond mobile device application to crowdsource basic life support for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest : Challenges for optimal implementation. / Brooks, Steven C.; Simmons, Graydon; Worthington, Heather; Bobrow, Bentley J; Morrison, Laurie J.

In: Resuscitation, Vol. 98, 01.01.2016, p. 20-26.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d458660cd1d44403beb2bd34851f570a,
title = "The PulsePoint Respond mobile device application to crowdsource basic life support for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Challenges for optimal implementation",
abstract = "Background: PulsePoint Respond is a novel mobile device application that notifies citizens within 400. m (~1/4. mile) of a suspected cardiac arrest to facilitate resuscitation. Our objectives were to (1) characterize users, and (2) understand their behavior after being sent a notification. We sought to identify challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint-mediated bystander resuscitation. Methods: PulsePoint Respond users who sent a notification between 04/07/2012 and 06/16/2014 were invited to participate in an online survey. At the beginning of our study, PulsePoint Respond was active in more than 600 US communities. Results: There were 1274 completed surveys (response rate 1448/6777, 21.4{\%}). Respondents were firefighters (28{\%}), paramedics (18{\%}), emergency medical technicians (9{\%}), nurses (7{\%}), MDs (1{\%}), other health care professionals (12{\%}), and non-health care professionals (42{\%}). Of those who received a PulsePoint notification, only 23{\%} (189/813) responded to the PulsePoint notification. Of those who responded, 28{\%} (52/187) did not arrive on scene. Of those who did arrive on scene, only 32{\%} (44/135) found a person unconscious and not breathing normally. Of those who arrived on scene prior to emergency medical services and found a cardiac arrest victim, 79{\%} (11/14) performed bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Conclusions: Challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint Respond include technical aspects of the notifications (audio volume, precision of location information), excessive activation radii, insufficient user density in the community, and suboptimal cardiac arrest notification specificity. PulsePoint Respond has the potential to improve the community response to cardiac arrest, with 80{\%} of responders attempting basic life support when they found a cardiac arrest victim prior to EMS.",
keywords = "Automated external defibrillators, Bystanders, Cardiac arrest, Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Crowdsourcing, Mobile devices",
author = "Brooks, {Steven C.} and Graydon Simmons and Heather Worthington and Bobrow, {Bentley J} and Morrison, {Laurie J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.09.392",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "98",
pages = "20--26",
journal = "Resuscitation",
issn = "0300-9572",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The PulsePoint Respond mobile device application to crowdsource basic life support for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

T2 - Challenges for optimal implementation

AU - Brooks, Steven C.

AU - Simmons, Graydon

AU - Worthington, Heather

AU - Bobrow, Bentley J

AU - Morrison, Laurie J.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background: PulsePoint Respond is a novel mobile device application that notifies citizens within 400. m (~1/4. mile) of a suspected cardiac arrest to facilitate resuscitation. Our objectives were to (1) characterize users, and (2) understand their behavior after being sent a notification. We sought to identify challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint-mediated bystander resuscitation. Methods: PulsePoint Respond users who sent a notification between 04/07/2012 and 06/16/2014 were invited to participate in an online survey. At the beginning of our study, PulsePoint Respond was active in more than 600 US communities. Results: There were 1274 completed surveys (response rate 1448/6777, 21.4%). Respondents were firefighters (28%), paramedics (18%), emergency medical technicians (9%), nurses (7%), MDs (1%), other health care professionals (12%), and non-health care professionals (42%). Of those who received a PulsePoint notification, only 23% (189/813) responded to the PulsePoint notification. Of those who responded, 28% (52/187) did not arrive on scene. Of those who did arrive on scene, only 32% (44/135) found a person unconscious and not breathing normally. Of those who arrived on scene prior to emergency medical services and found a cardiac arrest victim, 79% (11/14) performed bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Conclusions: Challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint Respond include technical aspects of the notifications (audio volume, precision of location information), excessive activation radii, insufficient user density in the community, and suboptimal cardiac arrest notification specificity. PulsePoint Respond has the potential to improve the community response to cardiac arrest, with 80% of responders attempting basic life support when they found a cardiac arrest victim prior to EMS.

AB - Background: PulsePoint Respond is a novel mobile device application that notifies citizens within 400. m (~1/4. mile) of a suspected cardiac arrest to facilitate resuscitation. Our objectives were to (1) characterize users, and (2) understand their behavior after being sent a notification. We sought to identify challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint-mediated bystander resuscitation. Methods: PulsePoint Respond users who sent a notification between 04/07/2012 and 06/16/2014 were invited to participate in an online survey. At the beginning of our study, PulsePoint Respond was active in more than 600 US communities. Results: There were 1274 completed surveys (response rate 1448/6777, 21.4%). Respondents were firefighters (28%), paramedics (18%), emergency medical technicians (9%), nurses (7%), MDs (1%), other health care professionals (12%), and non-health care professionals (42%). Of those who received a PulsePoint notification, only 23% (189/813) responded to the PulsePoint notification. Of those who responded, 28% (52/187) did not arrive on scene. Of those who did arrive on scene, only 32% (44/135) found a person unconscious and not breathing normally. Of those who arrived on scene prior to emergency medical services and found a cardiac arrest victim, 79% (11/14) performed bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Conclusions: Challenges for optimal implementation of PulsePoint Respond include technical aspects of the notifications (audio volume, precision of location information), excessive activation radii, insufficient user density in the community, and suboptimal cardiac arrest notification specificity. PulsePoint Respond has the potential to improve the community response to cardiac arrest, with 80% of responders attempting basic life support when they found a cardiac arrest victim prior to EMS.

KW - Automated external defibrillators

KW - Bystanders

KW - Cardiac arrest

KW - Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

KW - Crowdsourcing

KW - Mobile devices

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953865370&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84953865370&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.09.392

DO - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.09.392

M3 - Article

C2 - 26475397

AN - SCOPUS:84953865370

VL - 98

SP - 20

EP - 26

JO - Resuscitation

JF - Resuscitation

SN - 0300-9572

ER -