Objective: To document the clinical practice of cardiopulmonary–cerebral resuscitation (CPCR) among academic veterinarians. Design: Survey. Setting: Eight colleges of veterinary medicine in the United States. Subjects: Two hundred and one academic veterinarians. Interventions: The survey was distributed by hand by the authors into the mailboxes of small animal faculty, residents, and interns. Demographic variables, questions regarding number of cardiopulmonary arrests (CPA) supervised and number successful, do not attempt resuscitation discussions, and Likert‐style questions about client presence during CPCR, appropriateness of CPCR, and CPCR decision‐making were included. Multiple linear regression models were constructed to determine the effect of multiple questions on different target variables of interest. Measurements and main results: Numerous differences were noted based on institution, gender, specialty, and position. Most institutions did not have a standard resuscitation consent form. Most respondents believed the client, house officer, and senior clinician should determine whether to perform resuscitation or not. Quality of life was the most significant determinant of whether to resuscitate or not, followed by long‐term prognosis, then short‐term prognosis. Conclusions: Veterinarians differ in many aspects of their approach to CPA and resuscitation. Creating consensus within the veterinary profession would benefit client service and patient care.

Objective: To examine the impact of stress on veterinarians resulting from both the provision of cardiopulmonary–cerebral resuscitation (CPCR) and the discussion of CPCR and do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) with affected clients. Design: Descriptive cross‐sectional with survey methodology. Setting: Eight colleges of veterinary medicine in the United States. Subjects: Two hundred and one academic veterinarians. Interventions: The survey was distributed by the authors to small animal faculty, residents, and interns. Demographic variables and Likert‐style questions about comfort discussing and performing CPCR and affective impact of CPCR events were included. Multiple linear regression models were constructed to determine the effect of the questions on different target variables of interest. Measurements and Main Results: Ninety‐six percent of veterinarians experienced stress when performing CPCR and reported that positive emotions after a successful CPCR were statistically greater than the negative emotions of an unsuccessful CPCR. Veterinarians trained in CPCR reported lower scores for stress and negative emotional impact from a failed CPCR. Conclusions: Veterinarians experience stress during CPCR and when discussing CPCR and DNAR choices with owners. Steps can be taken to reduce the likelihood of having a negative affect from CPCR efforts, such as improved training of CPCR supervisors and increased competence of CPCR supervisors.

No abstract

No abstract