ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Study Examining Attitudes of Staff, Patients and Relatives to Witnessed Resuscitation in Adult Intensive Care Units: Article Critique

Study Examining Attitudes of Staff, Patients and Relatives to Witnessed Resuscitation in Adult Intensive Care Units: Article Critique

Introduction

The debate surrounding the presence of relatives in the resuscitation room has been active since the 1980s (Solina, 2008). Since that time, resuscitation techniques have evolved and survival rates improved. Progress has also been made in the care and support given to parents or relatives who are suddenly bereaved following a failed resuscitation attempt in the A&E department. (Grice, 2004, 820)

This progress has forced the moral and ethical debates around witnessed resuscitation into the open Grice, (Vizza, 2007, 355) believe that family presence during resuscitation is probably the most emotionally charged topic in health care. Witnessed resuscitation is defined as medical resuscitation in the presence of family members. (Vizza, 2007, 355) recommends that families should be given the opportunity to be in the resuscitation room with their loved one, plus appropriate support. Although this practice is increasing, many hospitals continue to exclude relatives (Resuscitation Council UK, 1996). This paper presents a critique of the article “Study Examining Attitudes of Staff, Patients and Relatives to Witnessed Resuscitation in Adult Intensive Care Units” by (Troncy, 2008, 1483) in a concise and comprehensive way.

Article Critique

Witnessed resuscitation was first explored in the United States at Foote Hospital in Jackson, Michigan, after family members demanded to be present during resuscitation on two separate occasions in 1984. Staff conducted a survey of family members to determine whether they wanted to be present and 70 per cent of the small sample wished they had been in the room during resuscitation. Following these results (Troncy, 2008, 1483), relatives were given information on the patient's condition and allowed to be in the resuscitation room if they wished, accompanied by specially trained staff.

A second survey, two years after the programme had been established, found that, of the relatives who had witnessed resuscitation, three quarters felt that their adjustment to the death had been made easier because of it (Connors, 1996). The question of witnessed resuscitation was not discussed in Europe until an article was published in the British Medical Journal in 1994.

The consequences of witnessed resuscitation are well documented in literature which contains a mixture of positive and negative accounts. In a study involving 24 doctors and nurses, (McNeil, 2007, 157) found that although most approved of witnessed resuscitation, more doctors than nurses disapproved (McNeil, 2007, 157). Similarly, experts' survey found that doctors felt more strongly than nurses that staff have the right to refuse parents' entry due to the increased pressure they would feel (Villar, 2007, 523).

The issue of stress among staff was the focus of Grice, Picton and Deakin (2003) research which showed that 61 per cent of the 133 healthcare workers questioned were concerned that relatives' emotional response and stress levels would be increased and these concerns would interfere with their work. Other surveys reported that relatives were not welcomed in ...