Jo Porter1, Simon J Cooper, Ken Sellick. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia. jo.porter@monash.edu
Abstract
AIM: To undertake a review of the quantitative research literature, to determine emergency staff and public attitudes, to support the implementation and practice of family presence during resuscitation in the emergency department. BACKGROUND: FPDR although endorsed by numerous resuscitation councils, cardiac, trauma and emergency associations, continues to be topical, the extent to which it is implemented and practiced remains unclear. REVIEW METHODS: A review of the quantitative studies published between 1992 and October 2011 was undertaken using the following databases: CINAHL, Ovid Medline, PSYCHINFO, Pro-Quest, Theses Database, Cochrane, and Google Scholar search engine. The primary search terms were 'family presence', and 'resuscitation'. The final studies included in this paper were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in this literature review. These included quantitative descriptive designs, pre and post-test designs and one randomized controlled trial (RCT). The studies were divided into three main research areas; investigation of emergency staff attitudes and opinions, family and general public attitudes, and four papers evaluating family presence programs in the emergency department. Studies published prior to 2000 were included in the background. CONCLUSION: FPDR in the emergency department is well recognised and documented among policy makers, the extent in which it is implemented and practiced remains unclear. Further research is needed to assess how emergency staff are educated and trained in order to facilitate family presence during resuscitation attempts.
AIM: To undertake a review of the quantitative research literature, to determine emergency staff and public attitudes, to support the implementation and practice of family presence during resuscitation in the emergency department. BACKGROUND: FPDR although endorsed by numerous resuscitation councils, cardiac, trauma and emergency associations, continues to be topical, the extent to which it is implemented and practiced remains unclear. REVIEW METHODS: A review of the quantitative studies published between 1992 and October 2011 was undertaken using the following databases: CINAHL, Ovid Medline, PSYCHINFO, Pro-Quest, Theses Database, Cochrane, and Google Scholar search engine. The primary search terms were 'family presence', and 'resuscitation'. The final studies included in this paper were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in this literature review. These included quantitative descriptive designs, pre and post-test designs and one randomized controlled trial (RCT). The studies were divided into three main research areas; investigation of emergency staff attitudes and opinions, family and general public attitudes, and four papers evaluating family presence programs in the emergency department. Studies published prior to 2000 were included in the background. CONCLUSION: FPDR in the emergency department is well recognised and documented among policy makers, the extent in which it is implemented and practiced remains unclear. Further research is needed to assess how emergency staff are educated and trained in order to facilitate family presence during resuscitation attempts.