OBJECTIVE: To assess the opinion of Belgian Emergency Department (ED) staff regarding family-witnessed resuscitation (FWR). METHODS: All 142 Belgian EDs were sent a questionnaire on hospital-related data and personal questionnaires for the ED staff concerning their opinion on FWR. Opinions of physicians, nurses and other emergency care providers were compared and related with hospital or sociodemographic data. RESULTS: Eighty-five ED services (60%) responded with a total of 1143 personal questionnaires: of these 79% were nurses, and 19% physicians. Eighty percent of the hospitals had a prehospital intervention team. Only two departments (2.5%) practiced structured FWR; 21% put the relatives in the corridor. Eleven percent did not give any information at all to relatives. Fourteen percent organized 'training in coping with relatives'. Forty-one percent of the staff members had been asked for FWR but only 33% were positive about it. Fifty-six percent thought that relatives could be of use in the shock room. Sixty-six percent experienced it as a burden. Sixty-five percent thought that FWR helps in grieving but 93% feared traumatic distress. Sixty-four percent would like to attend the resuscitation of their own relatives. Thirty-five percent fear a high risk of complaints. Prehospital experience, higher workload, seniority and male staff are significant advantages towards FWR. Emergency physicians are more positive towards FWR, nurses less so, followed by other physicians. CONCLUSION: The Belgian ED staff is still unconvinced about FWR. Despite evidence-based data they still think that resuscitation is traumatizing for relatives. Experience, both in as well as out of hospital, is a positive factor.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the opinion of Belgian Emergency Department (ED) staff regarding family-witnessed resuscitation (FWR). METHODS: All 142 Belgian EDs were sent a questionnaire on hospital-related data and personal questionnaires for the ED staff concerning their opinion on FWR. Opinions of physicians, nurses and other emergency care providers were compared and related with hospital or sociodemographic data. RESULTS: Eighty-five ED services (60%) responded with a total of 1143 personal questionnaires: of these 79% were nurses, and 19% physicians. Eighty percent of the hospitals had a prehospital intervention team. Only two departments (2.5%) practiced structured FWR; 21% put the relatives in the corridor. Eleven percent did not give any information at all to relatives. Fourteen percent organized 'training in coping with relatives'. Forty-one percent of the staff members had been asked for FWR but only 33% were positive about it. Fifty-six percent thought that relatives could be of use in the shock room. Sixty-six percent experienced it as a burden. Sixty-five percent thought that FWR helps in grieving but 93% feared traumatic distress. Sixty-four percent would like to attend the resuscitation of their own relatives. Thirty-five percent fear a high risk of complaints. Prehospital experience, higher workload, seniority and male staff are significant advantages towards FWR. Emergency physicians are more positive towards FWR, nurses less so, followed by other physicians. CONCLUSION: The Belgian ED staff is still unconvinced about FWR. Despite evidence-based data they still think that resuscitation is traumatizing for relatives. Experience, both in as well as out of hospital, is a positive factor.