Public involvement in designing a study on patient-witnessed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospital

Patient and public involvement and engagement with cardiac arrest survivors

Background: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with cardiac arrest survivors is an essential component of research to strengthen development, design, delivery and dissemination to ensure research priorities are in the public interest and patient friendly. Cardiac arrest survivors and their relatives were engaged in PPIE to help develop the methods of a research study that aims to reduce individual and care process variation during paramedic-led resuscitation.Methods: This research methodology paper represents the views of seven PPIE representatives and the authors. PPIE representatives included five cardiac arrest survivors and two relatives. Content for the paper was generated by discussion using audio or video call. Notes were taken by the author which included direct quotations generated by the PPIE process.Results: The PPIE representatives considered research surrounding the decisions made by paramedics to be important. From their first-hand experiences, survivors and their relatives felt that a future research study should focus on patient survival. The decision-making of paramedics was identified as most important to explore. Quality of life before the cardiac arrest was considered important as this may help to inform best-interest decisions. The neurologic recovery of patients was important; however, rehabilitation may be extensive and therefore unachievable within the study timeframe. Relatives highlighted that while incorporating their views during resuscitation was important, gaining consent for research participation was not appropriate.Conclusion: PPIE added value and helped to develop a future study to reduce variation in the resuscitation decisions made by paramedics. The group identified what is important to survivors and their relatives and the factors they would like paramedics to consider when making a resuscitation decision. By identifying these factors, the PPIE process has helped to drive the research methods where both quantitative and qualitative designs would be appropriate. Issues in gaining research consent during resuscitation were highlighted.

What the curtains do not shield: A phenomenological exploration of patient-witnessed resuscitation in hospital. Part 2: Healthcare professionals' experiences

Aims

To explore healthcare professionals' experiences of patient‐witnessed resuscitation in hospital.

Design

Descriptive phenomenology.

Methods

Healthcare professionals involved in hospital resuscitation activities were recruited from medical, intensive care, resuscitation and education departments in a university hospital in England. Data were collected through face‐to‐face and focus group interviews, between August 2018 and January 2019. Data were analysed using Giorgi's phenomenological approach.

Results

Nine registered nurses, four healthcare assistants and seven doctors participated in four individual interviews and three focus groups. Findings were related to three themes: (1) Protecting patients from witnessing resuscitation: healthcare professionals used curtains to shield patients during resuscitation, but this was ineffective. Thus, they experienced challenges in explaining resuscitation events to the other patients and communicating sensitively. (2) Emotional impact of resuscitation: healthcare professionals recognized that witnessing resuscitation impacted patients, but they also felt emotionally affected from performing resuscitation and needed coping strategies and support. (3) Supporting patients who witnessed resuscitation: healthcare professionals recognized the importance of patients' well‐being, but they felt unable to provide effective and timely support while providing life‐saving care.

Conclusion

Healthcare professionals involved in hospital resuscitation require specific support, guidance and education to care effectively for patients witnessing resuscitation. Improving communication, implementing regular debriefing for staff, and allocating a dedicated professional to support patients witnessing resuscitation must be addressed to improve clinical practice.

Impact

The WATCH study uncovers patients' and healthcare professionals' experiences of patient‐witnessed resuscitation, a phenomenon still overlooked in nursing research and practice. The main findings highlight that, in common with patients, healthcare professionals are subject to the emotional impact of resuscitation events and encounter challenges in supporting patients who witness resuscitation. Embedding the recommendations from this research into clinical guidelines will impact the clinical practice of healthcare professionals involved in hospital resuscitation and the quality and timeliness of care delivered to patients.

What the curtains do not shield: A phenomenological exploration of patient-witnessed resuscitation in hospital. Part 1: patients' experiences

Aims

The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of hospital patients who witnessed resuscitation of a fellow patient.

Design

Descriptive phenomenology.

Methods

Patients who witnessed resuscitation were recruited from nine clinical wards in a university hospital in England. Data were collected through face‐to‐face individual interviews. Participants were interviewed twice,in 1 week and 4 to 6 weeks after the resuscitation event. Data were collected between August 2018 and March 2019. Interviews were analysed using Giorgi's phenomenological analysis.

Results

Sixteen patients participated in the first interview and two patients completed follow‐up interviews. Three themes were developed from the patients' interviews. (1) Exposure to witnessing resuscitation: patients who witness resuscitation felt exposed to a distressing event and not shielded by bed‐space curtains, but after the resuscitation attempt, they also felt reassured and safe in witnessing staff's response. (2) Perceived emotional impact: patients perceived an emotional impact from witnessing resuscitation and responded with different coping mechanisms. (3) Patients' support needs: patients needed information about the resuscitation event and emotional reassurance from nursing staff to feel supported, but this was not consistently provided.

Conclusion

The presence of other patients during resuscitation events must be acknowledged by healthcare professionals, and sufficient information and emotional support must be provided to patients witnessing such events. This study generates new evidence to improve patients' experience and healthcare professionals' support practices.

Impact

The phenomenon of patient‐witnessed resuscitation requires the attention of healthcare professionals, resuscitation officers and policymakers. Study findings indicate that witnessing resuscitation has an emotional impact on patients. Strategies to support them must be improved and integrated into the management of in‐hospital resuscitation. These should include providing patients with comprehensive information and opportunities to speak about their experience; evacuating mobile patients when possible; and a dedicated nurse to look after patients witnessing resuscitation events.

Incorporating parent, former patient and clinician perspectives in the design of a national UK double-cluster, randomised controlled trial addressing uncertainties in preterm nutrition

Background

Comparative effectiveness randomised controlled trials are powerful tools to resolve uncertainties in existing treatments and care processes. We sought parent and patient perspectives on the design of a planned national, double-cluster randomised controlled trial (COLLABORATE) to resolve two longstanding uncertainties in preterm nutrition.

Methods

We used qualitative focus groups and interviews with parents, former patients and clinicians. We followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist and conducted framework analysis, a specific methodology within thematic analysis.

Results

We identified support for the trial's methodology and vision, and elicited themes illustrating parents' emotional needs in relation to clinical research. These were: relieving the pressure on mothers to breastfeed; opt-out consent as reducing parent stress; the desire for research to be a partnership between clinicians, parents and researchers; the value of presenting trial information in a collaborative tone; and in a format that allows assimilation by parents at their own pace. We identified anxiety and cognitive dissonance among some clinicians in which they recognised the uncertainties that justify the trial but felt unable to participate because of their strongly held views.

Conclusions

The early involvement of parents and former patients identified the centrality of parents' emotional needs in the design of comparative effectiveness research. These insights have been incorporated into trial enrolment processes and information provided to participants. Specific outputs were a two-sided leaflet providing very brief as well as more detailed information, and use of language that parents perceive as inclusive and participatory. Further work is warranted to support clinicians to address personal biases that inhibit trial participation.