Zachary D Goldberger1, Brahmajee K Nallamothu2, Graham Nichol2, Paul S Chan2, J Randall Curtis2, Colin R Cooke2. 1. From the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle (Z.D.G., G.N., J.R.C.); Divisions of Cardiology (Z.D.G.) and Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (J.R.C.), Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle; Harborview Center for Prehospital Emergency Care, University of Washington, Seattle (G.N.); Department of Internal Medicine (B.K.N., C.R.C.), Divisions of Cardiovascular Medicine (B.K.N.), Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (C.R.C.), and Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (B.K.N., C.R.C.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, MI (B.K.N.); and Saint Luke's Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO (P.S.C.). zgoldber@uw.edu. 2. From the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle (Z.D.G., G.N., J.R.C.); Divisions of Cardiology (Z.D.G.) and Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (J.R.C.), Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle; Harborview Center for Prehospital Emergency Care, University of Washington, Seattle (G.N.); Department of Internal Medicine (B.K.N., C.R.C.), Divisions of Cardiovascular Medicine (B.K.N.), Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (C.R.C.), and Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (B.K.N., C.R.C.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, MI (B.K.N.); and Saint Luke's Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO (P.S.C.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing number of hospitals have begun to implement policies allowing for family presence during resuscitation (FPDR). However, the overall safety of these policies and their effect on resuscitation care is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted an observational cohort study of 252 hospitals in the United States with 41,568 adults with cardiac arrest. Multivariable hierarchical regression models were used to evaluate patterns of care at hospitals with and without an FPDR policy. Primary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge. Secondary outcomes included resuscitation quality, interventions, and facility-reported potential resuscitation systems errors. There were no significant differences in facility characteristics between hospitals with and without an FPDR policy, nor were there significant differences in return of spontaneous circulation (adjusted risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.06) or survival to discharge (adjusted risk ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.15). There was a small, borderline significant decrease in the mean time to defibrillation at hospitals with an FPDR policy compared with hospitals without the policy (mean difference, 0.32 minutes; 95% confidence interval, -0.01 to 0.64). Resuscitation quality, interventions, and facility-reported potential resuscitation systems errors did not meaningfully differ between hospitals with and without an FPDR policy. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with an FPDR policy generally have no statistically significant differences in outcomes and processes of care as hospitals without this policy, suggesting such policies may not negatively affect resuscitation care. Further study is warranted about the direct effect of FPDR attempts on adult patients with an in-hospital cardiac arrest and their families.
BACKGROUND: A growing number of hospitals have begun to implement policies allowing for family presence during resuscitation (FPDR). However, the overall safety of these policies and their effect on resuscitation care is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted an observational cohort study of 252 hospitals in the United States with 41,568 adults with cardiac arrest. Multivariable hierarchical regression models were used to evaluate patterns of care at hospitals with and without an FPDR policy. Primary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge. Secondary outcomes included resuscitation quality, interventions, and facility-reported potential resuscitation systems errors. There were no significant differences in facility characteristics between hospitals with and without an FPDR policy, nor were there significant differences in return of spontaneous circulation (adjusted risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.06) or survival to discharge (adjusted risk ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.15). There was a small, borderline significant decrease in the mean time to defibrillation at hospitals with an FPDR policy compared with hospitals without the policy (mean difference, 0.32 minutes; 95% confidence interval, -0.01 to 0.64). Resuscitation quality, interventions, and facility-reported potential resuscitation systems errors did not meaningfully differ between hospitals with and without an FPDR policy. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with an FPDR policy generally have no statistically significant differences in outcomes and processes of care as hospitals without this policy, suggesting such policies may not negatively affect resuscitation care. Further study is warranted about the direct effect of FPDR attempts on adult patients with an in-hospital cardiac arrest and their families.
Authors: Ahamed H Idris; Danielle Guffey; Tom P Aufderheide; Siobhan Brown; Laurie J Morrison; Patrick Nichols; Judy Powell; Mohamud Daya; Blair L Bigham; Dianne L Atkins; Robert Berg; Dan Davis; Ian Stiell; George Sopko; Graham Nichol Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ian G Stiell; Siobhan P Brown; James Christenson; Sheldon Cheskes; Graham Nichol; Judy Powell; Blair Bigham; Laurie J Morrison; Jonathan Larsen; Erik Hess; Christian Vaillancourt; Daniel P Davis; Clifton W Callaway Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Joseph P Ornato; Mary Ann Peberdy; Renee D Reid; V Ramana Feeser; Harinder S Dhindsa Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Zachary D Goldberger; Paul S Chan; Robert A Berg; Steven L Kronick; Colin R Cooke; Mingrui Lu; Mousumi Banerjee; Rodney A Hayward; Harlan M Krumholz; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Timur Sellmann; Andrea Oendorf; Dietmar Wetzchewald; Heidrun Schwager; Serge Christian Thal; Stephan Marsch Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Jeffrey T Bruckel; Sandra L Wong; Paul S Chan; Steven M Bradley; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Feras H Abuzeyad; Ahmed Elhobi; Wael Kamkoum; Luma Bashmi; Ghada Al-Qasim; Leena Alqasem; Naser Mohamed Ali Mansoor; Stephanie Hsu; Priya Das Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2020-08-31