Family presence during resuscitation and invasive procedures

Family presence during resuscitation: Perceptions and confidence of intensive care nurses in an Australian metropolitan hospital

BACKGROUND

While literature supporting family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) was first published over three decades ago, the practice remains controversial. Benefits have been confirmed, and barriers to practice identified through international research. The extent that FPDR is practised in Australian intensive care units (ICUs) is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To examine ICU nurses' previous exposure and experiences with FPDR To establish their perceptions of the risks and benefits of the practice, as well as their confidence participating.

METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional study design, using validated FPDR risk-benefits and confidence scales, was distributed electronically to registered nurses working within a single adult ICU in Australia.

RESULTS

Fifty-six percent (n = 45) of respondents had never witnessed FPDR. Respondents were divided on whether families had the right to be present or should be given the option. ICU nurses perceived benefits for families but not for the patients involved or for the nurses participating. Nurses indicated they felt conflicted between the needs of the family, preserving the quality of the care delivered to a deteriorating patient, and protecting the safety of all stakeholders. Support for FPDR was often dependent on the availability of resources such as a family-support person.

CONCLUSION

This research establishes that ICU nurses lacked exposure to FPDR but were confident in their ability to perform, be observed, and support families during a resuscitation event. Therefore, confidence is likely not a factor in a decision to reject the practice. Further education is indicated as there remained a reluctance to adopt FPDR practice, despite many of the barriers reported having already been largely disproven by the available literature. Institutions have a role in policy development, ensuring adequate resources, and education.

Family presence during resuscitation

BACKGROUND

Patients and their relatives often expect to be actively involved in decisions of treatment. Even during resuscitation and acute medical care, patients may want to have their relatives nearby, and relatives may want to be present if offered the possibility. The principle of family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) is a triangular relationship where the intervention of family presence affects the healthcare professionals, the relatives present, and the care of the patient involved. All needs and well-being must be balanced in the context of FPDR as the actions involving all three groups can impact the others.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to investigate how offering relatives the option to be present during resuscitation of patients affects the occurrence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms in the relatives. The secondary aim was to investigate how offering relatives the option to be present during resuscitation of patients affects the occurrence of other psychological outcomes in the relatives and what effect family presence compared to no family presence during resuscitation of patients has on patient morbidity and mortality. We also wanted to investigate the effect of FPDR on medical treatment and care during resuscitation. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate and report the personal stress seen in healthcare professionals and if possible describe their attitudes toward the FPDR initiative.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to 22 March 2022 without any language limits. We also checked references and citations of eligible studies using Scopus, and searched for relevant systematic reviews using Epistomonikos. Furthermore, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and ISRCTN registry for ongoing trials; OpenGrey for grey literature; and Google Scholar for additional trials (all on 22 March 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of adults who have witnessed a resuscitation attempt of a patient (who was their relative) at the emergency department or in the pre-hospital emergency medical service.  The participants of this review included relatives, patients, and healthcare professionals during resuscitation.  We included relatives aged 18 years or older who have witnessed a resuscitation attempt of a patient (who is their relative) in the emergency department or pre-hospital. We defined relatives as siblings, parents, spouses, children, or close friends of the patient, or any other descriptions used by the study authors. There were no limitations on adult age or gender. We defined patient as a patient with cardiac arrest in need of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), a patient with a critical medical or traumatic life-threatening condition, an unconscious patient, or a patient in any other way at risk of sudden death. We included all types of healthcare professionals as described in the included studies. There were no limitations on age or gender.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We checked titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search, and obtained the full reports of those studies deemed potentially relevant. Two review authors independently extracted data. As it was not possible to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesized data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

The electronic searches yielded a total of 7292 records after deduplication. We included 2 trials (3 papers) involving a total of 595 participants: a cluster-randomized trial from 2013 involving pre-hospital emergency medical services units in France, comparing systematic offer for a relative to witness CPR with the traditional practice, and its 1-year assessment; and a small pilot study from 1998 of FPDR in an emergency department in the UK. Participants were 19 to 78 years old, and between 56% and 64% were women. PTSD was measured with the Impact of Event Scale, and the median score ranged from 0 to 21 (range 0 to 75; higher scores correspond to more severe disease). In the trial that accounted for most of the included participants (570/595), the frequency of PTSD-related symptoms was significantly higher in the control group after 3 and 12 months, and in the per-protocol analyses a significant statistical difference was found in favor of FPDR when looking at PTSD, anxiety and depression, and complicated grief after 1 year.  One of the included studies also measured duration of patient resuscitation and personal stress in healthcare professionals during FPDR and found no difference between groups. Both studies had high risk of bias, and the evidence for all outcomes except one was assessed as very low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusions on the effects of FPDR on relatives' psychological outcomes.   Sufficiently powered and well-designed randomized controlled trials may change the conclusions of the review in future.

In-hospital family-witnessed resuscitation with a focus on the prevalence, processes, and outcomes of resuscitation: A retrospective observational cohort study

AIM

International and national guidelines support in-hospital, family-witnessed resuscitation, provided that patients are not negatively affected. Empirical evidence regarding whether family presence interferes with resuscitation procedures is still scarce. The aim was to describe the prevalence and processes of family-witnessed resuscitation in hospitalised adult patients, and to investigate associations between family-witnessed resuscitation and the outcomes of resuscitation.

METHODS

Nationwide observational cohort study based on data from the Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

RESULTS

In all, 3257 patients with sudden, in-hospital cardiac arrests were included. Of those, 395 had family on site (12%), of whom 186 (6%) remained at the scene. It was more common to offer family the option to stay during resuscitation if the cardiac arrest occurred in emergency departments, intensive-care units or cardiac-care units, compared to hospital wards (44% vs. 26%, p < 0.001). It was also more common for a staff member to be assigned to take care of family in acute settings (68% vs. 56%, p = 0.017). Mean time from cardiac arrest to termination of resuscitation was longer in the presence of family (20.67 min vs. 17.49 min, p = 0.020), also when controlling for different patient and contextual covariates in a regression model (Stand(β) 0.039, p = 0.027). No differences were found between family-witnessed and non-family-witnessed resuscitation in survival immediately after resuscitation (57% vs. 53%, p = 0.291) or after 30 days (35% vs. 29%, p = 0.086).

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital, family-witnessed resuscitation is uncommon, but the processes and outcomes do not seem to be negatively affected, suggesting that staff should routinely invite family to witness resuscitation.

Healthcare providers' perspectives on family presence during resuscitation in the emergency departments of the Kingdom of Bahrain

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, policies exist on family presence during resuscitation (FPDR), however, this is still lacking in the Gulf Corporation Countries (GCC) in general and in the Kingdom of Bahrain in particular. The aim of this study is to assess the perspectives of healthcare providers (HP) on FPDR among those working in the emergency departments (EDs) in the Kingdom.

METHODS

A self-administered anonymous electronic survey was collected from 146 HPs (emergency physicians and nurses) working in the three major EDs in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Besides demographic data, 18 items measuring HPs' perceptions of FPDR were generated using the 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Surveys (n = 146) from physicians and nurses were analysed (45.9% vs. 54.1%, respectively). There were significant differences between physicians and nurses in terms of personal beliefs, FPDR enhancing professional satisfaction and behaviour, and the importance of a support person and saying goodbye (p < 0.001). However, general responses demonstrated that the majority of HPs encouraged and supported FPDR, but with greater support from physicians than nurses.

CONCLUSION

The study reflects that many HPs in EDs participated in and are familiar with FPDR, with the majority of ED physicians supporting it. Further studies should investigate the reasons for the lack of support from nurses. Results may contribute to the development of hospital ED policies that allow FPDR in the region.

Parents’ Experience When Present During a Child’s Resuscitation: An Integrative Review

Understanding perceptions of parents is necessary to meet parents’ needs during a child’s resuscitation. Parent presence at pediatric resuscitations has been slow to become consistent practice in all hospital settings and remains controversial. The purpose of this integrative review was to synthesize research on parents’ experience while present during a child’s resuscitation to improve understanding for health care providers and to facilitate application in practice. Nine studies met inclusion criteria, identifying four major themes. Parents experienced conflicting emotions, articulated a need for communication and support, reported that being physically present was comforting, and described their reactions to the experience. The available research on parents’ experience during presence at their child’s resuscitation offers a foundation for further detailed study. Further study is needed about parents’ perspective of support needed while present during a child’s resuscitation, as well as about any long-term effects of presence on parent stress and coping.

The opinion of health professionals regarding the presence of relatives during cardiopulmonary resucitation

BACKGROUND

The latest recommendations from the American Heart Association and the European Resuscitation Council invite allowance for the presence of relatives (PR) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as an extra measure of family care.

OBJECTIVE

To discover the opinion of health professionals on the PR during CPR.

METHOD

Cross-sectional observational study through an online survey in Spain, based on a non-probability sample (n=315).

RESULTS

45% consider that the PR during CPR is not demanded by users. 64% value the implementation of this practice in a negative or a very negative way. 45% believe that the practice would avoid the feeling of abandonment that is instilled in the relatives, this being the most widely perceived potential benefit. 30% do not believe that it can help reduce the anxiety of relatives. The majority remarked that PR would cause situations of violence, psychological harm in witnesses, and more mistakes during care. 48% feel prepared to perform the role of companion.

CONCLUSIONS

Most professionals perceive more risks than benefits, and are not in favour of allowing PR due to a paternalistic attitude, and fear of the reactions that could be presented to the team. Extra-hospital emergency personnel seems to be the group most open to allowing this practice. Most professionals do not feel fully prepared to perform the role of companion.

Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR): A survey of emergency personnel in Victoria, Australia

BACKGROUND

Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) has been endorsed internationally by resuscitation councils since the year 2000; however, the extent to which FPDR is practiced in emergency settings requires further investigation.

METHODS

Emergency personnel (n=347) from 18 participating emergency departments across the state of Victoria, Australia completed a 10-page questionnaire, which was designed to develop an understanding of the current practice and implementation of FPDR and to ascertain the differences in practice between adult and paediatric resuscitations.

RESULTS

Emergency personnel update their adult and paediatric advanced life support qualifications annually with 87% of nurses and 65% of doctors completing adult life support and 72% of nurses and 49% of doctors completing paediatric advanced life support training. The majority of nursing staff reported support for FPDR (83%) with over 70% indicating that it is apart of their current practice. There was strong agreement from both nurses (79%) and doctors (77%) that the family have the right to be present. A family support person was deemed as essential by nurses (92%) and doctors (89%) when allowing family to be present. A factor analysis was conducted on participant statements, revealing four codes; impact on professional practice and performance, personnel beliefs about FPDR, professional satisfaction and the importance of a support person and saying goodbye.

CONCLUSION

A family support person was highlighted as essential to the successful implementation of FPDR, together with the development of a comprehensive training the education program for emergency personnel. FPDR continues to be a significant issue and further investigation into FPDR practice and implementation in the ED is warranted.

Partner experiences of "near-miss" events in pregnancy and childbirth in the UK: a qualitative study

Objective

Severe life-threatening complications in pregnancy that require urgent medical intervention are commonly known as “near-miss” events. Although these complications are rare (1 in 100 births), there are potentially 8,000 women and their families in the UK each year who live through a life-threatening emergency and its aftermath. Near-miss obstetric emergencies can be traumatic and frightening for women, and their impact can last for years. There is little research that has explored how these events impact on partners. The objective of this interview study was to explore the impact of a near-miss obstetric emergency, focusing particularly on partners.

Design

Qualitative study based on narrative interviews, video and audio recorded and transcribed for analysis. A qualitative interpretative approach was taken, combining thematic analysis with constant comparison. The analysis presented here focuses on the experiences of partners.

Participants

Maximum variation sample included 35 women, 10 male partners, and one lesbian partner who had experienced a life-threatening obstetric emergency.

Setting

Interviews were conducted in participants’ own homes.

Results

In the hospital, partner experiences were characterized by powerlessness and exclusion. Partners often found witnessing the emergency shocking and distressing. Support (from family or staff) was very important, and clear, honest communication from medical staff highly valued. The long-term emotional effects for some were profound; some experienced depression, flashbacks and post-traumatic stress disorder months and years after the emergency. These, in turn, affected the whole family. Little support was felt to be available, nor acknowledgement of their ongoing distress.

Conclusion

Partners, as well as women giving birth, can be shocked to experience a life-threatening illness in childbirth. While medical staff may view a near-miss as a positive outcome for a woman and her baby, there can be long-term mental health consequences that can have profound impacts on the individual, but also their families.

Views of emergency research (VERA): a qualitative study of women and their partners' views of recruitment to trials in severe postpartum haemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

to explore women's and their partners' views of recruitment to emergency trials in severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).

DESIGN

interview-based qualitative study. In semi-structured in-depth interviews, five recruitment options for a PPH trial in an emergency context were considered.

SETTING

interviews were carried out in participants' homes.

PARTICIPANTS

nine women who had experienced a severe PPH and six partners.

FINDINGS

interviewees rejected three options; decision-making by women prior to delivery, and by partners and legal representatives at the time of the emergency. Preferred options were women making antenatal decisions about trial entry themselves, followed by doctors making decisions at the time of the emergency.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

recruitment options involving women and their partners at the time of an emergency were rejected. Antenatal decision-making raises logistical and ethical considerations for emergency trial teams. Further research is needed to address the possibility of antenatal decisions for emergency trials and to develop and assess supportive post-enrolment recruitment and information strategies which take into account the stressful context of clinical emergencies such as PPH.