AIM: To compare the attitudes of the public attending at a local Emergency Department and the medical staff towards witnessed resuscitation. METHODS: Over a 2-week period in April 2006, we conducted an interview survey on the relatives of patients attending at the Emergency Department of Singapore General Hospital (SGH) via a convenience sampling. We approached 156 people with a response rate of 93.5%. We compared the results with a similar study conducted on the medical staff in the Emergency Department in the same hospital. RESULTS: Should relatives be present during resuscitation? We found that 73.1% of the public supported witnessed resuscitation compared to only 10.6% of the medical staff (P<0.001). The most frequently deemed advantage for witnessed resuscitation cited by both groups was that relatives would then have assurance that everything possible had been done for the patient. While 68.8% of the public felt that being allowed into the resuscitation area would help in their grieving processes, only 35.6% of the medical staff shared the same point of view (P<0.001). Medical staff were less likely to agree that witnessed resuscitation would strengthen the bonds between themselves and the public (P<0.001). Medical staff were however, more inclined towards the opinion that relatives would have a traumatic experience in witnessing resuscitation of their loved ones (P<0.001) and that the presence of relatives would cause stress to the medical staff performing resuscitation (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Locally, we find a discrepancy between healthcare workers and the public towards the concept of witnessed resuscitation. More research is needed on the attitudes of the Asian public and medical staff.
AIM: To compare the attitudes of the public attending at a local Emergency Department and the medical staff towards witnessed resuscitation. METHODS: Over a 2-week period in April 2006, we conducted an interview survey on the relatives of patients attending at the Emergency Department of Singapore General Hospital (SGH) via a convenience sampling. We approached 156 people with a response rate of 93.5%. We compared the results with a similar study conducted on the medical staff in the Emergency Department in the same hospital. RESULTS: Should relatives be present during resuscitation? We found that 73.1% of the public supported witnessed resuscitation compared to only 10.6% of the medical staff (P<0.001). The most frequently deemed advantage for witnessed resuscitation cited by both groups was that relatives would then have assurance that everything possible had been done for the patient. While 68.8% of the public felt that being allowed into the resuscitation area would help in their grieving processes, only 35.6% of the medical staff shared the same point of view (P<0.001). Medical staff were less likely to agree that witnessed resuscitation would strengthen the bonds between themselves and the public (P<0.001). Medical staff were however, more inclined towards the opinion that relatives would have a traumatic experience in witnessing resuscitation of their loved ones (P<0.001) and that the presence of relatives would cause stress to the medical staff performing resuscitation (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Locally, we find a discrepancy between healthcare workers and the public towards the concept of witnessed resuscitation. More research is needed on the attitudes of the Asian public and medical staff.