Family presence at resuscitation: What if?*

The effects of family-witnessed resuscitation on health professionals

Aim:

To gain an understanding of the effects of family-witnessed resuscitation (FWR) on health professionals.

Background:

FWR has been the subject of an ongoing debate for almost 30 years. Historically, emergency departments (EDs) have excluded family members of a critically ill or injured patient from the treatment area during resuscitation.

Methodology:

A systematic literature search of six nursing-focused databases was undertaken using pertinent keywords. Only studies published in English, focused on ED staff and undertaken after 2007 (published up to 2017) were included.

Findings:

FWR is not commonly practised by health professionals. The four themes identified were: fear of adverse litigation; the importance of the role of the facilitator; lack of FWR policies in the workplace; and staff lack of knowledge and education regarding FWR, resulting in fear and stress.

Conclusion:

By implementing policies in the workplace, and having a facilitator to provide support and guidance to families, stress and anxiety can be greatly reduced. The implementation of educational programmes can increase staff awareness and knowledge surrounding the benefits of FWR

Experience of families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a pediatric intensive care unit

OBJECTIVES

Having parents present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is becoming a common practice in pediatrics. This study aimed to determine parents' perception of the effects of their presence during the resuscitation efforts of their child and whether they would recommend the experience to other families.

METHODS

This study included parents or guardians of children who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and died at least 6 months before the interview. After telephone consent was obtained, a survey questionnaire was completed. The interviewees answered whether they were asked to be present, whether they had physical contact with their child, and whether the experience frightened them or gave them and their child comfort. The interviewees were asked to express their feelings about what was helpful to them and what could be done to improve the experience.

RESULTS

A total of 41 interviews were conducted, and responders were divided into 2 groups: 21 in the present group and 20 in the not-present group for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Twelve (60%) of those in the not-present group believed that their presence would have comforted the child, and 50% (10 of 20) believed that it would have helped them accept the child's death. Of those in the present group, 67% (8 of 12) believed that touching their child brought comfort, 29% (6 of 21) felt scared during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 71% (15 of 21) believed that their presence comforted their child, and 67% (14 of 21) believed that their presence helped them adjust to the loss of the child. The majority in both groups (63% [26 of 41]) would recommend being present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports encouraging family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The majority of parents who had been present and those who had not been present believed that all families should be given the option to be present.

Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004–2005

OBJECTIVE

To develop clinical practice guidelines for the support of the patient and family in the adult, pediatric, or neonatal patient-centered ICU.

PARTICIPANTS

A multidisciplinary task force of experts in critical care practice was convened from the membership of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to include representation from adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care units.

EVIDENCE

The task force members reviewed the published literature. The Cochrane library, Cinahl, and MedLine were queried for articles published between 1980 and 2003. Studies were scored according to Cochrane methodology. Where evidence did not exist or was of a low level, consensus was derived from expert opinion.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

The topic was divided into subheadings: decision making, family coping, staff stress related to family interactions, cultural support, spiritual/religious support, family visitation, family presence on rounds, family presence at resuscitation, family environment of care, and palliative care. Each section was led by one task force member. Each section draft was reviewed by the group and debated until consensus was achieved. The draft document was reviewed by a committee of the Board of Regents of the ACCM. After steering committee approval, the draft was approved by the SCCM Council and was again subjected to peer review by this journal.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 300 related studies were reviewed. However, the level of evidence in most cases is at Cochrane level 4 or 5, indicating the need for further research. Forty-three recommendations are presented that include, but are not limited to, endorsement of a shared decision-making model, early and repeated care conferencing to reduce family stress and improve consistency in communication, honoring culturally appropriate requests for truth-telling and informed refusal, spiritual support, staff education and debriefing to minimize the impact of family interactions on staff health, family presence at both rounds and resuscitation, open flexible visitation, way-finding and family-friendly signage, and family support before, during, and after a death.