Seeking an explanation for the poor uptake of in-hospital AED programs.

The automated external defibrillator (AED) has been adopted by emergency service personnel as a first-line intervention in the management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). AED leads to more successful Advanced Cardiac Life Support; consequently, national resuscitation organisations worldwide have recommended that nurses and doctors also integrate AEDs as a component of their basic life-support response to cardiac arrest. Despite these recommendations, the implementation of AED programs within hospitals has been generally sporadic and isolated. A continuation of this situation will most likely disturb and perplex nurses and patients, as they are key stakeholders with respect to upholding recommended BLS practices. In the absence of any explanation from change agents within hospitals, this paper seeks, by way of a pilot study and a review of the literature, to identify the extent of the problem and identify factors contributing to the relatively slow uptake of this device. We argue that nurses and other first responders to in-hospital cardiac arrest (CA) have much to gain, in the context of Occupational Health Safety and Welfare (OHS and W), from ready access to AEDs. Cost factors are also considered, with initial cost of AED purchase likely to be a major concern for managers of hospital budgets. The issues we discuss in this paper clearly support the need for further research to (a) explain the nature of public hospital resistance to AEDs and (b) to consider whether AEDs will provide practical advantages to public hospitals from an occupational, social and economic perspective.