Nga Yee Leung1, Susan K Y Chow. 1. School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Abstract
AIM AND OBJECTIVES: This study examines the attitudes of healthcare staff and patients' family members towards family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) in critical care units in Hong Kong. BACKGROUND: A wealth of literature is available on FPDR in various hospital and healthcare settings. The findings include many anecdotal accounts of both the positive and the negative effects of family presence. There is little documentation on the comparisons of staff and family members' perceptions and the predictors of staff attitudes towards FPDR practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey design. METHOD: A convenience sample of 163 healthcare staff and 69 family members was recruited from the intensive care units. RESULTS: There was significant difference in the attitudes of healthcare staff and patients' families towards FPDR. The regression analysis showed that the healthcare staff would be more supportive to FPDR if family members could share the dying moments with patients, family members were accompanied by a bereavement team member, there was adequate staff to support the family and staff members were adequately trained. If healthcare staff feel that family members may have the impression that the resuscitation is chaotic, witness resuscitation is traumatic experience for the family, family presence will increase risk of litigation and colleagues will not allow family members to stay during resuscitation making them less supportive of FPDR. Nurses were more supportive to FPDR than doctors. CONCLUSION: The results provide information for healthcare professionals on the development of FPDR programmes for patients and their family members. Through multi-disciplinary collaborations, the effective and safe implementation of FPDR practice can be enhanced. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results could help the clinical staff to develop written guidelines to produce an integrated and consistent approach to this sensitive issue in clinical practice.
AIM AND OBJECTIVES: This study examines the attitudes of healthcare staff and patients' family members towards family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) in critical care units in Hong Kong. BACKGROUND: A wealth of literature is available on FPDR in various hospital and healthcare settings. The findings include many anecdotal accounts of both the positive and the negative effects of family presence. There is little documentation on the comparisons of staff and family members' perceptions and the predictors of staff attitudes towards FPDR practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey design. METHOD: A convenience sample of 163 healthcare staff and 69 family members was recruited from the intensive care units. RESULTS: There was significant difference in the attitudes of healthcare staff and patients' families towards FPDR. The regression analysis showed that the healthcare staff would be more supportive to FPDR if family members could share the dying moments with patients, family members were accompanied by a bereavement team member, there was adequate staff to support the family and staff members were adequately trained. If healthcare staff feel that family members may have the impression that the resuscitation is chaotic, witness resuscitation is traumatic experience for the family, family presence will increase risk of litigation and colleagues will not allow family members to stay during resuscitation making them less supportive of FPDR. Nurses were more supportive to FPDR than doctors. CONCLUSION: The results provide information for healthcare professionals on the development of FPDR programmes for patients and their family members. Through multi-disciplinary collaborations, the effective and safe implementation of FPDR practice can be enhanced. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results could help the clinical staff to develop written guidelines to produce an integrated and consistent approach to this sensitive issue in clinical practice.
Authors: Michelle Olding; Sarah E McMillan; Scott Reeves; Madeline H Schmitt; Kathleen Puntillo; Simon Kitto Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Faygah M Shibily; Nada S Aljohani; Yara M Aljefri; Aisha S Almutairi; Wassaif Z Almutairi; Mashael A Alhallafi; Fatmah Alsharif; Wedad Almutairi; Hanan Badr Journal: Nurs Rep Date: 2021-02-15
Authors: Ali A Al Bshabshe; Mohammad Y Al Atif; Mohammed A Bahis; Abdulrahman M Asiri; AbdulAziz M Asseri; AbdulRahman A Hummadi; Awad Al-Omari; Yasser M Almahdi; A Rauoof Malik Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.411