Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and invasive procedures in children

Witnessed resuscitation of adult and paediatric hospital patients: An umbrella review of the evidence

OBJECTIVE

To examine the research evidence about whether families were allowed to witness cardiopulmonary resuscitation on hospitalised adult and paediatric patients; and the views of patients, families and health professionals, about witnessed cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

DESIGN

An umbrella review methodology of systematic reviews with sufficient methodological quality.

REVIEW METHODS

Papers published in Spanish and English between, 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018 were considered. The following databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo, Embase, the Central Supplier Database and the Joanna Briggs Institute, Evidence-based Practice Database. Two independent reviewers assessed the papers for methodological quality employing instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal, extraction and synthesis were carried out, employing the established methods for umbrella reviews and the protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO number CRD42019145610).

RESULTS

The search identified 12 systematic reviews with moderate-to-high quality, which covered 110 original papers. Habitually, health professionals expressed controversial views and showed some reluctance to let families be present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In contrast, family members felt strongly that they should be present and patients agreed. Key factors that facilitated witnessed cardiopulmonary were a formal institutional policy, educating health professionals, and designating a health professional to support the family. Educational and cultural backgrounds influenced healthcare professionals' experiences and their attitudes towards witnessed cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In general, Anglo-Saxon countries showed greater support for this practice. These included the United States, which was the country that dominated the literature on this subject.

CONCLUSIONS

The best available evidence supports allowing the family to be present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. It is necessary to include this practice in educational curricula and to train emergency personnel in its implementation. Culturally sensitive policies need to be designed, and the public to be aware of their right to be present.

Validation of instruments about family presence on invasive procedures and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pediatrics

OBJECTIVE

to develop and validate instruments to identify health professionals' beliefs related to the presence of the child's family in invasive procedures and in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

METHOD

study based on Psychometrics to conduct the theoretical, empirical and analytical stages, developed in a neonatal unit of a university hospital. The two instruments were constructed based on the literature and applied to 96 health professionals.

RESULTS

the Cronbach's Alpha of the instrument related to the professionals' beliefson invasive procedures was 0.863 and the instrument on cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 0.882. In both instruments, the tests performed indicated a correlation between the items. From the factorial analysis, four factors were generated: (1) benefits of the presence of the family; (2) impairment for professional practice; (3) strategies for the inclusion of the family; and (4) limitation of learning and decision making by the professional.

CONCLUSION

the instruments analyzed obtained a good internal consistency and are indicators of the professionals' beliefs with the potential to evaluate the quality of family care in this context.

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.

Relatives' Presence During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

BACKGROUND

The question of whether or not to allow family to be present during resuscitation is relevant to everyday professional health care assistance, but it remains largely unexplored in the medical literature.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an online survey with the aim of increasing our knowledge and understanding of this issue.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional, multicenter, descriptive, national, and international study using a web-based, voluntary survey. The survey was designed and distributed through a medical website in Spanish, targeting physicians who frequently deal with critical patients.

RESULTS

A total of 1,286 Argentine physicians and 1,848 physicians from other countries responded to this voluntary survey. Of Argentine respondents, 15.8% (203) treat only children, 68.2% (877) treat adults, and 16% (206) treat patients of any age. The survey found that 23% (296) of Argentine and 20% of other respondents favor the presence of family members during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (p = 0.03). This practice was more common among physicians treating pediatric and neonatal patients than among those who treat adults. The most commonly reported reason (21.8%) for avoiding the presence of relatives was concerns that physicians, communications, and medical practices might be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

CONCLUSIONS

Avoiding relatives' presence while performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation is the most frequent choice made by the surveyed physicians who treat critical Argentine patients. The main causes for discouraging family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation or other critical procedures include the following: risk of misinterpretation of the physician's actions and/or words; risk of a relative's decompensation; uncertainty about possible reactions; and interpretation of the relative's presence as negative.

[Family's presence in the pediatric emergency room: opinion of health's professionals]

OBJECTIVE

To learn the opinion of health professionals regarding the presence of family during pediatric emergency care.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study, performed with 46 health professionals, members of the medical and nursing team of a pediatric emergency service. The data were collected via the application of a questionnaire composed by variables related to the opinion of professionals about the studied subject, in line with the professional category and the vocational training time, as well as invasive procedures during which the presence of family is authorized by the professionals.

RESULTS

The medical staff and the professionals with shorter time after graduation (<10 years) were more favorable to the presence of family during emergency procedures. Regarding the complexity of the procedures, the nursing staff proved more favorable to the presence of family during less complex procedures-peripheral venous puncture and fluid sample-whereas the consent of the medical staff was similar, regardless the performed procedure-peripheral venous puncture, fluid sample, intraosseous puncture, tracheal intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to allow the presence of family in the emergency room, it is necessary to sensitize health professionals, especially the nursing staff and the longer-term acting professionals, which are more resistant to allow the family to stay with the child during the emergency care.