So my wife pointed out a cool article on a NY Times article describing the results of a research study looking at duration of CPR and outcomes. The main conclusion was that in some cases longer durations turned into better outcomes:
The findings challenge conventional medical thinking, which holds that prolonged resuscitation for hospitalized patients is usually futile because when patients do survive, they often suffer permanent neurological damage. To the contrary, the researchers found that patients who survived prolonged CPR and left the hospital fared as well as those who were quickly resuscitated. (emphasis added)I do not do anything close to this kind of research, but things like this give me hope that as we move forward more and more people will benefit from the inspiration and revelation that comes through research. In this case a measurable and direct effect on the lives of ER patients. So very cool. For me it also gives impetus to do the research well so that others, albeit indirectly, can benefit in some small way.
Research needs to be thorough and measured. For example at the end of the article one of the main authors says:
You don’t want to be on the low end of this curve. Hospitals that are outliers should reassess what they’re doing and think about extending the duration of their CPR....There isn’t going to be a magic number. If you’re in there 10 to 15 minutes, you need to push higher, but as you get up higher and higher, you get to the point of very little return. - Dr. Stephen J. GreenHis interpretation calls for change and reevaluation of previous assumptions, not the call for new ones. Conscientious change.
Update: I realized the connection to what I posted the previous day and have added a link.