The Early Implementation of a Hub-and-Spoke Survivorship Pathway for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survivors: A...

Background/Objectives: A structured follow-up after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is recommended, but implementation across regional networks remains challenging. REVIVE introduced a hub-and-spoke survivorship pathway in Lombardy. This 12-month formative implementation evaluation aimed to describe staged pathway progression, operational reach, attrition points, centre-level variation, and documented barriers to assessment completion. Methods: Adult OHCA survivors with Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2 or Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤ 3 were considered eligible. The evaluation was structured using Proctor et al.'s implementation outcomes framework. Implementation outcomes were operationalised using prospectively collected pathway indicators: eligibility ascertainment, successful contact, T0 assessment completion, completion of planned assessment components, timeliness where available, and documented reasons for non-progression. Analyses were descriptive and used chi-square or Fisher's exact tests for unadjusted centre-level comparisons. Results: Of the 1663 patients hospitalised, 1458 (87.7%) were recorded as deceased or having an unfavourable neurological outcome and were therefore outside the intended REVIVE target population. Among the remaining 205 patients, eligibility could not be determined for 78 (4.7% of the total cohort), and 127 (7.6%) met eligibility criteria. Of eligible survivors, 96 (75.6%) were contacted and 64 completed the T0 assessment (66.7% of contacted; 50.4% of eligible). Pavia showed higher observed rates of eligibility ascertainment, contact, and assessment completion than spoke centres, but these differences were unadjusted and should be interpreted as centre-level implementation variation rather than evidence of causal superiority. Conclusions: REVIVE initiated a structured regional pathway for post-OHCA follow-up, but first-year implementation was partial rather than definitive. The 50.4% T0 completion rate among eligible survivors should be interpreted as an initial internal implementation indicator, not as evidence of established feasibility, effectiveness, or regional benchmarking. Priorities for further optimisation include eligibility ascertainment, transfer of contact information, patient engagement, and spoke-site support for assessment delivery.