Having 911 telecommunicators deliver CPR instructions increases cardiac arrest survival, but limited English proficiency (LEP) decreases the likelihood callers will perform CPR and increases time to first compression. The objective of our study was to assess which 9-1-1 CPR delivery modes could decrease time to first compression and improve CPR quality for LEP callers. 139 LEP Spanish and Chinese speakers were randomized into three arms: receiving CPR instructions from a 9-1-1 telecommunicator (1) with telephone interpretation, (2) using alternative, simple ways to rephrase, or (3) who strictly adhered to protocol language. Time interval from call onset to first compression, and CPR quality were the main outcomes. The CPR quality was poor across study arms. Connecting to interpreter services added almost 2 min to the time. CPR training in LEP communities, and regular CPR training for phone interpreters may be necessary to improve LEP bystander CPR quality.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an effective intervention for prehospital cardiac arrest. Despite all available training opportunities for CPR, disparities exist in participation in CPR training, CPR knowledge, and receipt of bystander CPR for certain ethnic groups. We conducted five focus groups with Chinese immigrants who self-reported limited English proficiency (LEP). A bilingual facilitator conducted all the sessions. All discussions were taped, recorded, translated, and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed by content analysis guided by the theory of diffusion. The majority of participants did not know of CPR and did not know where to get trained. Complexity of CPR procedure, advantages of calling 9-1-1, lack of confidence, and possible liability discourage LEP individuals to learn CPR. LEP individuals welcome simplified Hands-Only CPR and are willing to perform CPR with instruction from 9-1-1 operators. Expanding the current training to include Hands-Only CPR and dispatcher-assisted CPR may motivate Chinese LEP individuals to get trained for CPR.

Objective. We investigated 9-1-1 telecommunicators' perceptions of communication difficulties with callers who have limited English proficiency (LEP) and the frequency and outcomes of specific communication behaviors. Methods. A survey was administered to 150 telecommunicators from four 9-1-1 call centers of a metropolitan area in the Pacific Northwest to assess their experience working with LEP callers. In addition, 172 9-1-1 recordings (86 of which were labeled by telecommunicators as having a "language barrier") were abstracted for telecommunicators' communication behaviors and care delivery outcomes. All recordings were for patients who were in presumed cardiac arrest (patient unconscious and not breathing). Additionally, computer-assisted dispatch (CAD) reports were abstracted to assess dispatch practices with regard to timing of basic life support (BLS) and advanced life support (ALS) dispatch. Results. One hundred twenty-three of the telecommunicators (82%) filled out the survey. The majority (70%) reported that they encounter LEP callers almost daily and most (78%) of them reported that communication difficulties affect the medical care these callers receive. Additionally, the telecommunicators reported that calls with LEP callers are often (36%) stressful. The number one strategy for communication with LEP callers reported by telecommunicators was the use of a telephone interpreter line known as the Language Line. However, the Language Line was utilized in only 13% of LEP calls abstracted for this study. The analysis of 9-1-1 recordings suggests that the LEP callers received more repetition, rephrasing, and slowing of speech than the non-LEP callers. Although there was no difference in time from onset of call to dispatching BLS, there was a significant difference in simultaneous dispatching of BLS and ALS between the LEP calls (20%) and non-LEP calls (38%, p < 0.05). Conclusion. Our study shows that 9-1-1 telecommunicators believe language barriers with LEP callers negatively impact communication and care outcomes. More research needs to be conducted on "best practices" for phone-based emergency communication with LEP callers. Additionally, LEP communities need to better understand the 9-1-1 system and how to effectively communicate during emergencies.

Objective. The goal of this investigation was to describe the reasons emergency medical services (EMS) is activated when resuscitation is not desired or when patients show signs of irreversible death. Methods. All medical incident report forms (MIRFs) indicating a cardiac arrest for which resuscitation was withheld were obtained from five participating fire departments. For each eligible case (N = 196), one of the emergency medical technicians (EMTs) present at the scene was interviewed and the dispatch tape of the 9-1-1 call was reviewed. Patient and caller characteristics were abstracted from the MIRFs and dispatch tapes. The EMTs were asked about the reasons for the call, whether the family expected this death, and the caller's emotional state when EMS arrived at the scene. In addition, EMS providers were asked open-ended questions about the services they provided for the patient and patient's family. Using chi-square statistics and t-tests, we compared two groups: 1) patients for whom resuscitation was not desired as indicated by a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order, terminal illness, or hospice (n = 66) and 2) patients for whom resuscitation was not started because of signs of irreversible death (n = 130). Results. Compared with callers for patients with signs of irreversible death, callers for patients for whom resuscitation was not desired were less likely to access EMS because they needed medical assistance (11% versus 30%) and more likely to call 9-1-1 because they thought it was required by law (30% versus 8%). Other common reasons in both groups for activating 9-1-1 were confusion regarding what to do and a request to confirm death. The most frequently reported service provided by EMTs for both groups was to offer to contact a chaplain. Conclusion. In a third of patients for whom EMS did not initiate resuscitation, resuscitation was withheld primarily because it was not desired rather than because there was evidence of irreversible death. Efforts to improve education may prevent EMS activation in these cases. An alternative EMS response could also help ensure patient autonomy and decrease costs to the EMS system.