22 Presence of family in resuscitation in prehospital: the physicians’ and nurses’ opinion

Abstract

hospital causes. Overall 8 cases out of 29 (27.6%) scored between 2.4 and 2.8 (1=Definitely avoidable, 2=Strong evidence of avoidability), 8 cases (27.6%) scored between 3.0 and 4.6 (3=Probably avoidable, 4=Possibly avoidable), and the remaining 13 cases (44.8%) between 4.0 and 5.8 (5=Slightly avoidable or 6=Definitely not avoidable). Variation between raters was satisfactory with ICC 0.84 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.92). Common themes among cases with strong evidence of avoidability were symptoms or physical findings indicating a potentially serious condition and refusal by patients or their carers to be transported to hospital. RCRRs require linked ambulance, hospital and mortality data to ensure accurate assessment in light of the diagnosis and cause of death. Conclusion Retrospective case record reviews (RCRR) have been widely used to assess quality of care but evidence for their use in prehospital ambulance settings is limited. We aimed to review case records of potentially avoidable deaths related to ambulance care.

The relationship between self-confidence and attitude of prehospital emergency personnel towards family presence during resuscitation

“…The results showed that the score of the personnel members' attitudes towards FPDR was lower than the mean value. These results are in line with the results of the studies which were conducted in Turkey [11] and Portugal [33] which they reported that the majority of prehospital emergency personnel members disagreed with the family presence during resuscitation. Furthermore, the results of other studies have indicated that most of the EMS team members do not prefer to provide resuscitation in the presence of the patents' family members and a large number of them feel uncomfortable about resuscitating the patients in the presence of their family members [9,10].…”

“…The other relevant factors included the family members' interference in the process of resuscitation, the prolongation of the resuscitation process, the di culty in making decisions to terminate the resuscitation process, and the increase in the personnel members' emotional stress. These results support the results of the studies conducted by Amaral et al [33] and Belpomme et al [9]. Likewise, some other studies have reported that the personnel' feeling of being under surveillance [11,34], the family members' interference in the personnel members' operation [10,33] and the family members' stress [33] constitute the factors which prompt the personnel to adopt negative attitudes towards FPDR.…”

“…These results support the results of the studies conducted by Amaral et al [33] and Belpomme et al [9]. Likewise, some other studies have reported that the personnel' feeling of being under surveillance [11,34], the family members' interference in the personnel members' operation [10,33] and the family members' stress [33] constitute the factors which prompt the personnel to adopt negative attitudes towards FPDR. In order to deal with these issues, it is possible to take certain measures.…”

“…In this study, the family members' reassurance and increased understanding of the efforts of the resuscitation team and the facilitation of their grief process were reported as important advantages of FPDR. These results are in line with the results of a study carried out by Amaral et al [33]. In this regard, a study by Compton et al indicated that 37% of the personnel members believed that FPDR prepared the family members to accept the patients' death [10].…”

“…In the present study, 94% of the participants had FPDR experience. In this regard, a study, which was conducted in Portugal, reported that 100% of prehospital emergency personnel had FPDR experience in EMS [33]. This statistic was 87% in France [9] and 95.3% in the United States of America [10].…”