PURPOSE: As part of a larger online survey examining the practices and preferences of Canadian critical care nurses regarding family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) of adult family members, the purpose of the study was to explicate salient issues about the practice of FPDR identified by nurses who responded to the qualitative portion of the survey. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative. METHODS: As part of an online survey, participants were given the opportunity to provide qualitative comments about their personal or professional experiences with FPDR. Data analysis was completed using content analysis and constant comparison techniques. FINDINGS: Of the 944 nurses contacted electronically, 450 completed the survey, for a response rate of 48%. Of these, 242 opted to share qualitative comments regarding their experiences with FPDR. Four major themes emerged from the data: (a) perceived benefits for family members; (b) perceived risks for family members; (c) perceived benefits for healthcare providers; and (d) perceived risks for healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of FPDR impacts both family members and members of the resuscitation team. Nurses weigh these impacts when considering whether or not to bring family members to the bedside. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study provide information for practicing clinicians, educators, and administrators regarding the decision-making processes nurses use when considerations of bringing family members to the bedside during resuscitative events are evoked.
PURPOSE: As part of a larger online survey examining the practices and preferences of Canadian critical care nurses regarding family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) of adult family members, the purpose of the study was to explicate salient issues about the practice of FPDR identified by nurses who responded to the qualitative portion of the survey. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative. METHODS: As part of an online survey, participants were given the opportunity to provide qualitative comments about their personal or professional experiences with FPDR. Data analysis was completed using content analysis and constant comparison techniques. FINDINGS: Of the 944 nurses contacted electronically, 450 completed the survey, for a response rate of 48%. Of these, 242 opted to share qualitative comments regarding their experiences with FPDR. Four major themes emerged from the data: (a) perceived benefits for family members; (b) perceived risks for family members; (c) perceived benefits for healthcare providers; and (d) perceived risks for healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of FPDR impacts both family members and members of the resuscitation team. Nurses weigh these impacts when considering whether or not to bring family members to the bedside. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study provide information for practicing clinicians, educators, and administrators regarding the decision-making processes nurses use when considerations of bringing family members to the bedside during resuscitative events are evoked.