This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

JOEL J. NOBEL, MD

AMA Arch Surg. 1966;92(6):879-885.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

CARDIOPULMONARY resuscitation is often a chaotic, desperately applied effort. This is true even in hospitals with relatively well-organized programs. There are many reasons for the confusion which accompanies hurried attempts to postpone death and recover a viable human being. These include inefficient organization and delegation of responsibility, lack of an effective and continuing training program, difficulty in rapid communication, and delay in transport of equipment and personnel to the area of the emergency.^1,2 Large gaps in our basic knowledge of the dying state as well as disagreement regarding appropriate drug therapy and inadequate criteria for selecting proper candidates for resuscitation add to the problem.

When an institution does have a reasonable organization and training program, another major defect becomes apparent. Resuscitation equipment systems available at the present time are inherently inefficient. The conventional cart containing drugs and equipment which is wheeled to the patient's bedside is highly inadequate in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PHILADELPHIA

From the Division of Surgery, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication March 3, 1966.

Reprint requests to 2006 Delancey Place, Philadelphia 19103.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?