Exploring attitudes of health care providers toward the presence of fami ly members during adult. Thesis Nurs. 1999 I4588e EXPLORING ATTITUDES OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TOWARDS THE PRESENCE OF FAMILY MEMBERS DURING ADULT CARDIO PULMONARY RESUSCITATION EFFORTS IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT By Thomas White, BSN, RN, CEN Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science in Nursing Degree Edinboro University of Pennsylvania Edinboro, Pennsylvania Approved by: Mary] jiisfe Keller, PhD, ■RNP Cornu ;ee Chairperson Dorothy sT^Carlson, DEd, RN Committee Member Saint Vincent Health Center Education/Research Specialist 7^ Ellen Pfadt, MSN, RN Committee Member Date Date' 02.W«> Family Presence During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Abstract Literature indicates that family members suffer no adverse psychological effects from witnessing CPR efforts on a loved one (Robinson, Mackenzie-Ross, Hewson, Egleston, and Prevost, 1998). Therefore, this study was aimed at health care providers and their attitudes towards family witnessed resuscitation on an adult family member. A seven-item questionnaire was distributed to physicians and registered nurses to determine their attitudes towards family presence during resuscitation procedures. The sample size was 38 HCPs, 12 being physicians and 26 registered nurses. Of the 38 respondents, 89.5% stated that they themselves would like to be given the opportunity to be present if the situation should arise with their loved one. In addition, of the HCPs who have been involved in situations where family members have been present during CPR efforts, 93.6% stated that this experience yielded benefits. This finding was higher than previously published research. The major benefit identified was that frmilies were viewed as supportive to the loved one in the resuscitation room The major disadvantage was that families might interfere with resuscitation efforts. This study also found that 79.0% of the respondents felt that families have the right to be present during resuscitation. However, this study found that less than half of the HCPs felt that families may interfere with treatment, procedures may offend families, and families may be disruptive to staff members working. Acknowledgments I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the individuals who helped with the development of this thesis. First, I would like to recognize the committee members: Dr. Mary Louise Keller (Chairperson), Dr. Dorothy S. Carlson, and Ellen Pfadt. Their time, energy, and support were greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank my family and Lisa Kruse for their patience and support throughout this program. Also, I would like to recognize my friends and co-workers at Saint Vincent Health Center for their support, friendship, and understanding. Lastly, I would like to thank Diana Powell, Delaynee Wilcox, and Amanda & Erica White. These four individuals were instrumental in keeping a smile on my face throughout this study. iii Table of Contents Title Page Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Chapter I: Introduction 1 Background of Problem 1 Problem 2 Research Purpose 2 Theoretical Framework 2 Definition of Terms 5 Assumptions 6 Limitations 7 Summary 7 Chapter II: Review of Literature 9 Family Family Needs. 9 Family Considerations Family Benefits 11 Classic Case iv Foote Hospital Study. 11 Procedure 12 Family Perspective 12 Health Care Providers 13 Health Care Provider’s Perspective 13 Supporting Study 13 Summary 16 Chapter ID: Methodology 17 Research Purpose 17 Operational Definition 17 Research Design 17 Setting and Sample 18 Setting 18 Sample 18 Instrumentation 18 Procedure 19 Protection of Human Rights 20 Data Analysis 20 Summary 20 Chapter IV: Analysis of Data Sample 22 Results 22 v Summary 30 Chapter V: Summary & Conclusions 32 Discussion 32 Conclusions 34 Recommendations for Future Research 35 Summary 36 References 38 Appendices 40 A. Original Questionnaire 41 B. Questionnaire 43 C. Kerry Hood permission letter 45 D. Medical Director and Team Leader permission letter 46 E. Cover letter 47 F. Follow-up letter 48 G. Hospital Internal Review Board letter vi List of Tables Table Page 1. Consideration of Family Presence 23 2. HCPs Preference 24 3. Family Members Wishing to be Present 25 4. Family Members Present During CPR Procedures 26 5. Benefits and Disadvantages Responses 26 6. Benefits 27 7. Disadvantages 28 8. HCPs Who are Prepared to Share Their Experience 29 9. Concerns about Family Presence 31 vii List of Figures Figure Page 1. Orem’s Theory 4 viii 1 Chapter 1 Introduction This study explored the attitudes of health care providers towards the presence of family members during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) efforts in the emergency department. Chapter 1 addresses the background of the problem as well as the problem, research purpose, theoretical framework, definition of terms, assumptions, and limitations. Background of Problem When a patient goes into cardiopulmonary arrest in most emergency department settings, one action by health care providers is to immediately escort the family out of the room (Back & Rooke, 1994). It has been identified that the immediate family would have preferred to stay with their loved one, if given the opportunity by the code team (Back & Rooke, 1994). During CPR efforts, time is ofthe essence since quick action by the code team is vital for a favorable outcome. When a patient is in cardiopulmonary arrest, it is important that the code team consider the emotional needs of the family (Back & Rooke, 1994). During resuscitation, little, if any, consideration is given whether or not the immediate family of the resuscitation patient would prefer to observe the resuscitation efforts. In the past it was routine, if not expected, to remove the family from this situation until the outcome was known (Back & Rooke, 1994). Health care providers assumed family members would be unable to cope with this type of 2 situation (Back & Rooke, 1994). However, research suggests the inability to cope lies within the code team and not with the immediate family (Redley & Hood, 1996). According to research (Hanson & Strawser, 1992), fear and anxiety that family members will disrupt the smooth flow of CPR efforts was the initial resistance expressed by the code team In addition, legal risk was found to be a concern shared by the code team The code team felt that by allowing CPR efforts to be witnessed without explanation of procedures, the potential for litigation would increase. For their study, a family member of a cardiopulmonary arrest patient was interviewed regarding her experience (Back & Rooke, 1994). The family member felt that being escorted out of the resuscitation room was less than supportive by the code team Problem In a 487-bed community hospital in northwestern Pennsylvania, a routine practice removes family members from a situation when resuscitation efforts have been initiated on an adult. Without consulting with family members, health care providers do not give the immediate family an option to witness CPR efforts on an adult. Research Purpose The purpose of this thesis was to explore the attitudes ofhealth care providers towards allowing family members to observe CPR efforts on an adult fimily member. Theoretical Framework For this study, Dorothea Orem’s self-care theory of nursing provided the framework (Orem, 1995). More specifically, this study focused on the dependent- 3 care agency aspect of her theory. People who provide dependent care are termed dependent care agents and are utilized to benefit another person. Dependent care agency is the ability of one person to carry out the needs of a dependent individual (Figure 1). During CPR efforts, the patient is in a state of unconsciousness. At this time, the family is the resource available to the patient for managing his/her care issues. Consequently, the family assumes the role of the dependent care agency (Orem, 1995). In addition to providing dependent care to the patient, Orem states that it is the responsibility of the health care providers to take into account the needs of the family. Currently, most family members are not given the opportunity of staying with their loved one. In order to meet the needs of the family, the code team needs to assess the family members desire to be present during CPR efforts. A family nurse practitioner employed in an emergency department setting may encounter situations where immediate family members wish to be present during CPR efforts on the adult patient. Research states that fear, expressed by health care providers regarding family witnessed CPR efforts, has an enormous impact in the success of family witnessed CPR efforts (Hanson & Strawser, 1992). With this in mind, these issues have a significant impact and concern on the practice ofthe family nurse practitioner. 4 Dorothea Orem’ s Self Care Theory Theory of Self Care Deficit Theory of Self Care Reasons why people require nursing care Performed by oneself for oneself Nursing System Developing the Dependent Care Agent (family) Figure 1 Orem’s Theory. 5 Definition of Term s There are several terms used throughout this study. They are defined as follows in alphabetical order: 1. An adult is a person who is of legal age (Mosby’s Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Dictionary, 1994). An adult in the state of Pennsylvania is a person who is 18 years of age or above. 2. Attitudes are defined as one’s emotional state or how one reacts when interacting with others (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1996, p. 75). An attitude is a stable predisposition to react in either a positive or negative manner to a given situation. 3. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts are the restoration of vital signs (heart rate, respirations, and blood pressure) by mechanical, physiological, and/or pharmacological means (Hudak, Gallo, & Lohr, 1986). 4. Code team is a specially trained and equipped group of health care providers who are available to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts in an institution when the emergency situation is announced. (Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, 1994). 5. Coping is a process that individuals use to deal with stress, solve problems, and make decisions (Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, 1994, p. 393)- Coping is an adaptive effort under conditions of stress, threat, and harm. 6. Dependent-care agency is defined as a process of formalization. It is the 6 capability to perform estimative, transitional and productive operations in knowing and meeting the therapeutic needs of another (Orem, 1995). The dependent care agent is the immediate family (family of origin or family of choice) who provides physical or psychosocial support to another person. 7. Dependent care agent is the person responsible for giving dependent care (Orem, 1995). 8. A health care provider (HCP) is a licensed individual with a formal Education (Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, 1994). Tn this study, it encompasses physicians, and registered nurses. 9. Immediate family consists of two or more people emotionally related who display behaviors that are emotionally, physically, and spiritually nurturing (Redley &Hood, 1996). 10. Resuscitation efforts take place in the time span from when a patient enters the emergency department and has no vital signs (heart rate, respirations, and blood pressure) until the time of death in the emergency department or transfer to another unit (Redley & Hood, 1996). Assumptions Underlying the study were these assumptions. 1. Health care providers will respond honestly to questions about their attitudes towards the presence of the immediate family during cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts on an adult. 2. The stress of cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts causes the health care 7 providers to have certain attitudes about the event 3. Presence of immediate family members during CPR efforts is standard practice in some Emergency Departments. 4. Most family members want to be present during CPR efforts on an adult patient. 5. Generally, family presence would not interfere with cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts. 6. Family presence during CPR efforts helps them to cope with the outcome of the resuscitation efforts. Limitations The limitations of this study are as follows: 1. A convenience sample of health care providers in an emergency department of a hospital in northwestern Pennsylvania was used for this study. Therefore, the external generalizability of the results of this study to other hospitals and their personnel cannot be determined. 2. The attitudes of the health care providers are limited to one specific time when assessed and may or may not reflect past or future attitudes. Summary In this chapter, the background of the problem stated that if given the opportunity, immediate family members would prefer to be present during adult CPR efforts (Back & Rooke, 1994). The specific problem identified is that witnessed CPR efforts of the adult patient are not an option for immediate family members in a 487- 8 bed hospital in northwestern Pennsylvania. The purpose of this thesis was to explore the attitudes of health care providers towards the presence of family members during CPR efforts on the adult patient. The dependent care agency aspect of Dorothea Orem’s (1995) self-care theory of nursing provided the framework for this study. Definitions of terms, assumptions, and limitations utilized in this study have been provided. 9 Chapter n Review of Literature This chapter presents an overview of current literature on the presence of immediate family members during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) efforts in the emergency department setting. Specifically, this chapter describes perspectives of the families in terms of needs, considerations and benefits; a classic case, and finally the perspective of the health care providers. Family Patients are described as individuals, who are separate, unique, and live by a series of interdependent relationships with primary units of family (Orem, 1995). Nurses frequently find themselves interacting with several people at one time and need to take into consideration the needs of others, this being the family (Orem, 1995). The needs and considerations of families by nursing is then legitimized. Family Needs. Family, as described by Dorothea Orem (1995), is an interrelated system of interpersonal and social relationships that function as a unit. Literature states that including immediate family members during CPR efforts assists the family and the patients in meeting their emotional and psychosocial needs during the traumatic event (Eichhorn, Meyers, Mitchell, & Guzzetta, 1996). During their research, numerous comments were made that led them to believe that families have the desire to be present during CPR efforts (1996). Excluding family members from the resuscitation room was viewed as being less than supportive (Back & Rooke, 1994). 10 Family Considerations During cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts, family members expressed a desire to remain with their loved ones during this time (Back & Rooke, 1994). The two major reasons given included that the families wanted to be kept informed and they wanted to be assured that their loved one was not experiencing pain (Back & Rooke, 1994). A study revealed that only 11% of family members were given the opportunity to go into the resuscitation area, whereas most of the respondents would have appreciated the opportunity to witness CPR efforts (Barratt & Wallis, 1998). Barratt & Wallis (1998) stated families commented that their loved ones died without anyone holding their hand. Also, families stated that they were told what the physicians did and were left to imagine what procedures and steps were taken. Family members who were present during CPR efforts were able to see that everything possible was done (1998). One lamily member stated that staying with her loved one helped her to come to terms with his death (Adams, 1994). Witnessing CPR efforts helped another family member to make the decision to stop fruitless efforts (Geiger, 1995). Family members who were excluded from witnessing CPR efforts stated they felt uninvolved, uninformed, and helpless in the face of death of their loved one (Goldsworth & Bailey, 1998). Family Benefits. Family members do not have an accurate image of the events that occur during CPR efforts (Barratt & Wallis, 1998). These misconceptions may have a significant impact on immediate families who wish to be present during CPR efforts (Barratt & Wallis, 1998). Literature suggests that immediate family 11 presence during CPR efforts may have potential benefits within the emergency department setting (Eichhorn, Meyers, Mitchell, & Guzzetta, 1996). Psychological acceptance of death may be enhanced if family members were present to say good bye, express their love, touch their loved one, hold their hand, and kiss them while they were still warm (Eichhorn et at, 1996). Classic Case Foote Hospital Study. Foote Hospital is a 500-bed urban community hospital, in Jackson County, Michigan. It has 53,000 emergency department visits per year. In 1992, Foote Hospital began a program that allowed immediate family members to be present during CPR efforts on their loved ones (Hanson & Strawser, 1992). Initially, there was a great deal of fear expressed by the health care providers, fear that disruption of the code efforts would occur due to the family member’s uncontrollable grief Tn addition, health care providers expressed concern that the code team’s emotions would be strongly evoked by the presence of the family member and that witnessing resuscitation and invasive procedures during CPR efforts would increase their legal risk. The impetus for the study began when staff questioned a policy that excluded family members from witnessing CPR efforts. The study stated that the grieving process cannot be rushed and that grief was a natural type ofpain experienced by loss. Family members, present during CPR efforts, stated the experience brought a sense of reality to the loss and avoided prolonged denial that would normally interfere with their normal grieving process (Hanson & Strawser, 1992). 12 Procedure. The process of family witnessed resuscitation at Foote Hospital begins when health care providers are notified that a patient is enroute and CPR efforts are m progress. Pastoral Care and a nurse are notified. Either of these two team members may give the family all the information regarding present condition and escort the family to a private room When the chaplain arrives, the family’s preparation for witnessing CPR efforts begins. Procedures, such as insertion of an endotracheal tube, IV tubes, application of monitors, other machines, are described to the family members. In addition, the chaplain explains to the family that the patient is unresponsive and it is unknown whether the patient is aware of family presence. Next, the chaplain or nurse escorts the family to the resuscitation area. Encouragement to enter the room is required at times. Upon entering the room, the family member is placed at the bedside and the code team encourages the family to talk and touch their loved one (Hanson & Strawser, 1992). Family Perspective. Upon completion of the one-year program, 47 family members responded to a survey. Seventy-six percent of the respondents stated then- adjustment to the death of their loved one was made easier by witnessing CPR efforts. Sixty-four percent stated they felt it was beneficial to the dying person to have family members present during CPR efforts. In addition, the patient was viewed as part of a loving family versus a clinical challenge. To date, Foote Hospital has had nine years experience with this program and not one instance of interference has occurred (Hanson & Strawser, 1992). 13 Health Care Providers Literature search only revealed three studies that specifically addressed attitudes of health care providers towards the presence of family during adult CPR efforts (Back & Rooke, 1994; Hanson & Strawser, 1992; Redley & Hood, 1996). The article by Hanson & Strawser was previously discussed. This section focused primarily on the articles by Back & Rooke and Redley & Hood. Health Care Provider’s Perspective. When CPR efforts have been instituted, care of the family is very important (Redley & Hood, 1996). In some situations, time with their loved one in the emergency department may be the last contact before death. Health care providers in the emergency department setting play a vital role in how family members deal with the events and how family members cope. However, health care providers have expressed a concern that they feel family witnessed resuscitation might do more harm that good (Back & Rooke, 1994). Their study (n=20) stated a concern that &mily members were unable to understand what goes on during CPR efforts and the family may interpret procedures as cruel (Back & Rooke, 1994). Also, health care providers felt the presence of family members may hinder the process for the simple reason that it may be traumatic for the family member (1994). Supporting Study. A study was conducted that addressed staff attitudes towards family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts (Redley & Hood, 1996). At six major metropolitan hospitals, a convenience sample of staffwas given self-administered questionnaires. 14 Depending on the specifications of hospital administration and the number of staff employed, each department was given 20 to 30 questionnaires to complete. One hundred and sixty questionnaires were distributed with a return rate of 83%. This sample consisted of 74% nurses and 26% medical staff There were three objectives to their study. The first objective was to address the staff s willingness to consider the option of family witnessed resuscitation. The second objective was to identify staff concerns about having families present in the resuscitation room. The third objective was to generate further discussion and study about the issue (Redley & Hood, 1996). Redley & Hood (1996) determined that 62% indicated that they would consider the proposal at a predetermined time under controlled situations; 14% reported that family members should always be invited into the resuscitation room; 11% said that family members should never be invited into the resuscitation room; 9% indicated that the medical person in charge of the patient’s care should make this decision; and 2% indicated that they were unsure about this matter. The remaining 2% was unaccounted for in the total percentage (Redley & Hood, 1996). This study also included an open-ended question that allowed new issues to be reported (1996). Hie following concerns are ranked according to the number of participants that indicated each preference: 1. 76% indicated that the procedures involved would offend family members. 2. 61% indicated concern that emotional stress on staff would be increased. 15 3. 48% indicated that family members would be disruptive to staff members working. 4. 46% indicated that famify presence would interfere with treatment. 5. 33% indicated that staff might offend family members. 6. 29% indicated that the general public is not equipped to deal with being present during resuscitation. 7. 18% indicated that legal proceedings might arise from their presence. 8. 7% indicated that there was no benefit to be gained from family presence. 9. 14% added varied comments indicating their concern. The majority of these could be classified with the above statements. The majority of the health care providers that responded felt that the procedures performed would offend family members (Redley & Hood, 1996). Therefore, two main points were highlighted (1996). 1. The role of a family support person is of paramount importance; fimilies must be well informed and supported emotionally, physically and spiritually. The guidelines used by the Foote Hospital recommend those family members always be accompanied by a staff member. 2. It is recommended that fimilies not be present during invasive procedures; this appears justified in view of the high response to this concern. In order for the program to be succe:tssfUl,there must ke acceptance by all health care providers. Educational programs that focuses on ptactical and theoretical ootnponents, as well as critical incident debriefing,mechanisms to supptnt health 16 care providers. “Families participate in the beginning and the middle of life, do we have the right to exclude them from the end?” (Redley & Hood, 1996, p. 150). Summary This chapter provided an overview of the literature pertaining to family presence during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts in the emergency department setting. Perspectives from the families were addressed. An overview from a classic case instituted at Foote Hospital was presented as well as the perspective expressed by health care providers toward the concept. 17 Chapter ID Methodology To best describe the attitudes of health care providers towards the presence of family members during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) efforts, a descriptive approach was used. Included in this chapter are the research purpose, operational definition, research design, setting and sample, instrumentation, procedure, protection of human rights, and data analysis. Research Purpose The purpose of this thesis was to explore the attitudes of health care providers towards allowing family members to observe CPR efforts on the adult family member. Operational Definition The operational definition used in this study was identified as attitudes related to the difficult situation brought on by CPR efforts as measured by the staff attitudes survey developed by Redley & Hood (1996). Research Design Uris study utilized a non-experimental descriptive survey research design. This study compared the attitudes of health care providers towards the presence of family members during adult CPR efforts in an emergency department. 18 Setting and Sample Setting. The setting for this study was an emergency department in northwestern Pennsylvania. This emergency department averages 53,000 visits per year. This emergency department consists of 17 beds with one room dedicated and equipped for CPR efforts. $amPle- 111 emergency department, physicians (n=12) and registered nurses (n=40) are the health care providers responsible for directing CPR efforts. A convenience sample of these health care providers was used. The sample size (n=52) was 100% of the population. During adult CPR efforts, the code team consists of two registered nurses and one physician. All registered nurses and physicians are certified in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS). Ninety percent of the nursing staff are diploma graduates while the remaining ten percent are baccalaureate graduates. Eighty percent of the registered nurses have certification in emergency nursing (CEN). The physician group consists of two osteopathic and ten allopathic doctors. One hundred percent of the physicians are board certified in emergency medicine. Instrumentation He questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed by Redley & Hood (1996) for the Foote Hospital study and was replicated for this study. Format changes were made to enable the use of an automatic survey-scanning machine (Appendix B). Redley and Hood gave permission for the use of this seven-item tool (Appendix C). 19 Statement one of this questionnaire addressed the health professional’s role in the emergency department. Question two dealt with consideration by the HCP to invite family members in to the emergency department during CPR efforts. Question number three addressed opportunities for family to witness CPR efforts on a loved one. Question number four dealt with families who have approached a HCP with requests to witness CPR efforts. Questions five, six, and seven identified health care providers who have been involved in situations where family members have been present during CPR efforts. Finally, question eight identified main concerns of HCPs about having family members present during CPR efforts. Information from this study was sent to Redley and Hood. Procedure Written permission to conduct this study in a northwestern Pennsylvania hospital was obtained from the emergency department medical director and the team leader (departmental nurse manager) (Appendix D). A cover letter (Appendix E) and the questionnaire were enclosed in an envelope and placed in the mailboxes of all emergency department registered nurses and physicians by the primary researcher during the first calendar quarter of 1999. Each health care provider had two weeks to complete the questionnaire, place it in the envelope provided, and return it to the department secretary. One week after the initial mailing, a second follow-up letter (Appendix F) was sent to thank the health care providers for completing the survey or encouraging them to return the completed questionnaire. The procedures described by Dillman (1987) for surveys were followed. 20 Protection of Human Rights Application to conduct this study in the emergency department was made to the hospital’s institutional review hoard (IKB). Review procedures were conducted and permission was obtained from the research office (Appendix G). Participation in the study was voluntary. Informed consent was implied by completion of the questionnaire. The primary researcher maintained confidentiality and anonymity. No names were recorded for participation in the study. Data collected was kept in the sole possession of the primary researcher and the department secretary. Access to this study data was limited to the primary researcher, the department secretary, the thesis committee, and the institutional review board. Data Analysis The responses to the questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results of the study were reported in aggregate and according to job classification. The AutoData® Survey* software package was used to tabulate the responses to the questionnaire. A computer software package, Microsoft Excel for Windows 95, version 7.0, copyrighted in 1995 assisted in analysis of the data for chi- square. A value ofp=<0.05 was chosen. The institution’s nurse researcher assisted with the analysis of the data. Summary This chapter Idtmti&d methodology, research purpose, operaiomtl deMion, research design, setting and sample, procedure, and protection of human rights. In 21 addition, the instrument was described in detail Dau analysis ™ accomplished with the assistance of the computer software package. 22 Chapter IV Analysis of Data This chapter presents the results obtained from a questionnaire (Appendix B) about staff attitudes towards family presence during resuscitation on an adult. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-square analysis was performed on nominal data. For Chi-square, the numbers of actual responses were compared to the expected number of responses that were calculated from the actual numbers. Results were reported in aggregate and according to the two job classifications. Sample A questionnaire was given to each HCP in an emergency department in one community hospital in northwestern Pennsylvania. Data were collected over a two- week period of time, from February 22 through March 8, 1999. The sample size was 52. The investigator received 38 completed questionnaires (73% response rate) which were all used for analysis. Results The results were presented initially for total respondents and then by job classification (physician and registered nurse). Percentages were calculated to two decimal points and then rounded to one decimal point. If the decimal point was .05, it was rounded to the next higher tenth of a number. If the decimal point was .50, the number remained as .50. 23 Question 1 asked the respondents to identify their cunent job classification. The results were divided into two subgroups, physician and nurse. Of the 38 questionnaires, 12 were completed by physicians (31.6%); 26, by registered nurses (68.4%). Question #2 stated Would you consider inviting family members of a patient being treated into the emergency room during resuscitation procedures?” Table 1 summarizes the answers to this question. Table 1 Consideration of Family Presence Total (n=38) Physician (n=12) Nurse (n=26) a n (%) a (%) (%) Always 11 (28.9%) 5 (41.7%) 6 (23.1%) Maybe at predetermined times 18 (47.4%) 3 (25.0%) 15 (57.7%) Only at the discretion of the physician 8 (21.1%) 3 (25.0%) 5 (19.2%) Never 1 (2.6%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0.00%) For analysis, the four types of responses were reclassified into two groups: always and not always. “Always” was the same as the actual response, while “not always” included the other three responses: maybe, only, and never. There was no 24 statistically significant difference (p=0.24) between the physicians and nurses in the frequency of considering inviting the family members. Question 3 asked the respondents if they would like to be given the opportunity to be present with a loved family member should the need arise for this person to be resuscitated in a hospital setting. The total HCPs, physicians and nurses, who would and would not prefer to be given the choice to be with a loved one during CPR efforts should the opportunity arise, is reflected in Table 2. Table 2 HCPs Preference Total (n=38) Physician (n=12) Nurse (n=26) n n n (%) (%) (%) Yes 34 (89.5%) 10 (83.3%) 24 (92.3%) No 4 (10.5%) 2 (16.7%) 2 (7.7%) The majority of both physicians and nurses expressed a favorable response to this question. Chi-square value reflected no statistically significant difference (^=0.44) between physicians and nurses regarding their preference. Question 4 asked HCPs if a family member wishing to be present in the resuscitation room had ever approached them Table 3 reflects the answers given by the total sample as well as by the physicians and nurses. 25 Table 3 Family Members Wishing to be Present Total (n=38) n (%) Physician (n=12) Nurse (n=26) n n (%) (%) Yes 29 (76.3%) 10 (83.3%) 19(73.1%) No 9 (23.7%) 2 (16.7%) 7 (26.9%) The majority of physicians and nurses have been approached by family members. Chi-square analysis showed no statistically significant difference (p=0.51) between the two subgroups. Question number 5 asked the respondents if they have ever been involved in a situation where family members have been present during CPR procedures in a hospital setting. Table 4 reflects the responses from the HCPs. Most HCPs have been involved in the situation. Chi-square analysis revealed no statistically significant difference (p=0.28) between the two sub groups. Question 6 asked those respondents who answered “yes” to question 5 (n=31) if there were benefits or disadvantages to the experience. The 31 HCPs gave 35 responses. Four persons chose both options. Table 5 reflects the HCPs’ opinion to the family member’s presence during resuscitation procedures. 26 Table 4 Family Members Present During CPR Procedures Total (n=38) Physicians (n=12) Nurses (n=26) n n n (%) (%) (%) Yes 31 (81.6%) 11 (91.7%) 20 (76.9%) No 7 (18.4%) 1 (8.3%) 6 (23.1%) Total (n=35) Physicians (n=13) Nurses (n=22) a a a Table 5 Benefits and Disadvantages Responses (%) (%) (%) Benefits 29 (82.9%) 10 (76.9%) 19 (86.4%) Disadvantages 6 (17.1%) 3 (23.1%) 3 (13.6%) Four respondents chose both options. Therefore, Chi-square analysis was not performed. 27 A comment section followed this question to allow for individual statements pertinent to other benefits and disadvantages. The respondents to question 6 (n=31) wrote a total of 25 comments (81%). Of those 25 comments, 10 were written by physicians (40%) and 15 by nurses (60%). This qualitative data were analyzed by a modified grounded theory approach. Tables 6 and 7 provide a summary of common themes for these comments. The benefits and disadvantages are listed in descending order of frequency for total HCPs. The comments by physicians and nurses are listed according to the relationship to the total HCPs. Table 6 Benefits Benefits HCPs Physicians Nurses Allows families to see that everything was done 14 (56.0%) 5 (20.0%) 9(36.0%) Provides the family with the opportunity to say “good bye” 3 (12.0%) 1 (4.0%) 2 (8.0%) Allows family to be active in decision making 1 (4.0%) 1 (4.0%) 0(0.0%) Views family as supportive in the resuscitation room 1 (4.0%) 1 (4.0%) 0(0.0%) 28 Table 7 Disadvantages Disadvantages HCPs Family interfered with Resuscitation efforts 3 (12.0%) 1 (4.0%) 2 (8.0%) Prevents HCPs from speaking freely 2 (8.0%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (8.0%) Family members were emotionally unprepared 1 (4.0%) 1 (4.0%) 0 (0.00%) Physicians Nurses Question 7 asked the same HCPs who responded <syes” to question 5 (n=31) if they have been involved in family witnessed CPR efforts. Table 8 summarizes those HCP’s response. Of the 31 who responded C6yes” 27 (87.7%) indicated their willingness to share their experience. The other four did not indicate willingness. 29 Table 8 HCPs Who are Prepared to Share Their Experience Total (n=27) n Physicians (n=9) n (%) (%) Nurses (n=18) fl (%) Yes 23 (85.2%) 8 (88.9%) 15 (83.3%) No 4 (14.8%) 1 (11.1%) 3 (16.7%) The Chi-square value was not at a statistically significant level (p=0.73). The majority of each subgroup was willing to share. An open-ended section followed this question to allow for individual responses. Of the 23 responses, 18 (78.3%) were usable, 5 (27.8%) from physicians and 13 (72.2%) from nurses. This qualitative data were analyzed and five commonalties emerged. The following three favorable and two unfavorable themes were given by the total group: Favorable 1. Families described experience as beneficial 2. Families were able to express patients’ wishes regarding resuscitation efforts 3. Families were assisted with the grieving process 30 Unfavorable 1. Families did not understand what was being done 2. HCPs were unable to focus on the patient when family members were present Statement 8 asked all HCPs (n=38) to indicate their main concerns about having family members present during resuscitation efforts. Respondents were asked to mark all concerns that applied, therefore, the total number of answers exceeds the sample size. A total of 38 respondents to this question gave 125 concerns, 41 by physicians and 84 by nurses. Concerns expressed by both subgroups are listed in descending order of frequency (Table 9). A comment section following this statement allowed respondents to list other concerns or reasons not addressed in the nine predetermined statements. Comments were vague and did not add to the relevance of the study. Summary This chapter presented the results from a questionnaire given to physicians and registered nurses in an emergency room regarding their attitudes on family presence during CPR efforts on an adult. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Chi-square analysis was performed when appropriate to compare the physician to nurse responses. No statistical significant differences were identified between the two subgroups of HCPs for all statements. 31 Table 9 Concerns about Family Presence Concern HCP (n=125) Physician (n=41) Nurse (n=84) Family members have a right to to be present during resuscitation 30 (78.8%) 9 (23.7%) 21 (55.3%) They may be disruptive to staff members working 18(47.4%) 6 (15.8%) 12(31.6%) They may interfere with treatment 17(44.7%) 6 (15.8%) 11 (28.9%) The procedures involved may offend family members 17 (44.7%) 6 (15.8%) 11 (28.9%) The general public is not equipped to deal with being present during resuscitation 14 (36.8%) 5(13.1%) 9 (23.7%) Legal proceedings may arise from their presence 12(31.6%) 2 (5.3%) 10 (26.3%) Emotional stress on staff would be increased 11 (28.9%) 3 (7.9%) 8 (21.0%) Staff may be offended by family members 4 (10.6%) 2 (5.3%) 2 (5.3%) There is no benefit to be gained from family presence during resuscitation 2 (5.3%) 2 (5.3%) 0 (0.00%) 32 Chapter V Summary & Conclusions This chapter provides a summary of the study about the attitudes of HCPs towards the presence of family members during adult CPR efforts in the emergency department. The questionnaire to solicit responses was developed by Redley and Hood (1996). The results of this study were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine the attitudes of health care providers towards family presence during resuscitation procedures in a northwestern Pennsylvania hospital In addition, comparisons between the two sub-groups, physicians and registered nurses, for statistically significant differences were determined by Chi-square analysis. Discussion, conclusions, and recommendations for future research based on the results of this study are provided in this chapter. Discussion In this study, respondents were asked if they would consider inviting family members into the emergency department during resuscitation procedures on an adult family member. Overall, 47.4% of HCPs stated ‘"maybe at predetermined times under controlled circumstances” would they consider inviting family members into the room during resuscitation efforts. This response was the most prevalent of the four options given for this question. This finding correlates with the results of the study conducted by Redley and Hood (1996). In their study, 62% of the health care providers responded in the same way. However, there was a difference between the 33 subgroups in this study. All physicians said “always” while most nurses said C6maybe.” HCPs were then asked if they would like to be given the opportunity to be present with a loved family member should they need to be resuscitated in a hospital setting. Of the 38 respondents to this question, 89.5% stated that they would like the opportunity to be present if the situation should arise. In the Redley and Hood study, 70% of their respondents reflected the same desire. Physicians and nurses in this study were in concert with their preference. In this study, HCPs were asked if they have ever been involved in a situation where family members have witnessed resuscitation procedures. Of the 38 respondents, 81.6% stated that they have been involved in such a situation. Physicians and nurses showed no difference. In the Redley and Hood study (1996), 68% of their respondents were also involved in the same situation. The next two paragraphs pertain to only those HCPs (n=31) who have been involved in situations where family members have been present during resuscitation procedures. First, they were asked if there were benefits or disadvantages to this experience. Tn this study, 93.6% of the HCPs stated that the experience yielded benefits, which was higher than the Redley and Hood study. Although the majority of their respondents (34%) shared the same feelings, the total percentage was approximately one-third of this study. HCPs were given an opportunity to provide comments by completing an open-ended question, regarding their own personal experience to having family 34 members present during resuscitation efforts. The most identified benefit was that families were viewed as supportive to the loved one in the resuscitation room. The major disadvantage was that HCPs felt the family presence interfered with resuscitation efforts. Lastly, this study asked all the respondents (n=38) to indicate their concerns about having family members present during resuscitation. In this section, the respondents chose 125 concerns. Overall, 79.0% of the respondents felt that families had the right to be present during resuscitation procedures. However, 47.4% felt that families would be disruptive to staff members working. Also, 44.7% of the respondents felt that family members would interfere with treatment and another 44.7% felt that the procedures involved would offend family members. This finding coincides with Redley and Hood (1996) who identified that 76% of their respondents felt that the procedures involved would offend family members. Also, in their study, 91% of their HCPs indicated concern that emotional stress on staff would be increased. However, in this study, only 29.0% of the respondents shared that same feeling. Conclusions Overall, there were similarities and differences between the findings of this study and Redley & Hood (1996). Reasons for differences could be a time element. Three years have passed since the Redley & Hood study. In addition, articles available for review in this area are limited, especially at the point when Redley and 35 Hood conducted their study. Also, geographical differences in the two studies may impact the way HCPs feel regarding family presence during CPR efforts. Based on the results of this study, family witnessed resuscitation could easily be implemented in the emergency department where this study took place. This sample of physicians and nurses are in concert with fundamental beliefs about this issue. Families have the right to witness resuscitation procedures. The majority of the respondents felt that they themselves would like to be given the opportunity to witness CPR efforts on a loved family member. With a large majority of the respondents stating that they had been involved in situations where families had been present during resuscitation procedures, most felt that the experience was beneficial. The results of this study supports Dorothea Orem’s (1995) self-care theory of nursing, the dependent care agency, and the ability of one person to carry out the needs of a dependent individual The person undergoing resuscitation procedures relies on the immediate family for support. Unless immediate family members are involved in resuscitation procedures, families are a limited source of support to the dependent patient. Recommendations for Future Research Robinson, Mackenzie-Ross, Hewson, Egleston, and Prevost (1998) found that there were no adverse psychological effects on family members who chose to be present with loved ones during resuscitation efforts. With this in mind, future studies are indicated regarding the barriers to family witnessed resuscitation eflforts. It is assumed that invasive procedures and resuscitation procedures will distress family 36 members (Robinson et al, 1998). This was proven not to be the case. Based on this and other similar studies, it is important that research be focused on the attitudes of HCPs and their feelings regarding this issue. Recommendations for further research emanate from two sources, limitations of this study and results of this study. 1. Conduct this study on other nursing units where CPR efforts are performed in the same hospital 2. Replicate this study with a larger sample size. 3. Replicate this study to include a larger region. 4. Expand to HCPs nationwide so that results will have external generalizability. 5. Conduct a longitudinal study where family witnessed resuscitation will be a standard of care so that past and present attitudes of HCPs can be measured. 6. Identify additional barriers that prevent the presence of family members during CPR procedures. 7. Examine factors that specifically influence the identified attitudes of HCPs. Summary This chapter provided a suimmary of this research project. Data indicated that HCPs were open to the suggestion of family witnessed resuscitation. In this study, most HCPs have been in situations where family members have been present during CPR efforts and these situations were viewed as beneficial Discussion and 37 conclusions were addressed and this chapter concluded with recommendations for future research. 38 References Adams, S. (1994). A sister’s experience. British Medical Journal, 308, (6945), 1687-1692. Anderson, K. (Ed.). (1994). Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company. Back, D., & Rooke, V. (1994). The presence of relatives in the resuscitation room Nursing Times, 90 (30), 34-35. Barratt, F., & Wallis, D. (1998). Relatives in the resuscitation room: their point of view. Journal of Accident and Emergency Medicine, 15,109-111. Dillman, D., (1987). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publication, 166-167. Eichhorn, D., Meyers, T., Mitchell, T., & Guzzetta, C. (1996). Opening the Doors: Family Presence During Resuscitation. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 10 (4), 59-70. Geiger, D. (1995). Good-Byes During CPR. American Journal ofNursing, 95 (5), 36. Goldsworth, J., & Bailey, M. (1998). Your patient is undergoing resuscitation. Where’s the family? Nursing 98, 52-53. Hall, G. (Ed.). (1996). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th Ed.). Boston: Merriam-Webster. 39 Hanson, C., & Strawser, D. (1992). Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Foot Hospital emergency department’s nine-year perspective. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 18 (2), 104-106. Hudak, C., Gallo, B., & Lohr, T. (1986). Critical Care Nursing. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 155-161. Orem, D., (1995). Nursing concepts of practice (5th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby. Redley, B., & Hood, K (1996). Staff attitudes towards family presence during resuscitation. Accident and Emergency Nursing, 4 (3), 145-151. Robinson, S., Mackenzie-Ross, S., Hewson, G., Egleston, C., & Prevost, A. (1998). Psychological effect of witnessed resuscitation on bereaved relatives. The Lancet, 352 614-617. 40 Appendices 41 Appendix A Staff Attitudes Towards Family Presence During Resuscitation Staff Questionnaire The purpose of this questionnaire is to identify what opinions hospital staff have on the issue of allowing family members to be present during resuscitation of a loved one. Please circle your choice. 1. Indicate which category your occupation falls into: a. NURSING b. MEDICAL c. ALLIED HEALTH d RELIGIOUS e. OTHER Would you consider inviting family members of a patient being treated into the emergency 2. room during resuscitation procedures? a ALWAYS b. NEVER c. MAYBE: at predetermined times under controlled circumstances d ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE MEDICAL PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE PATIENTS CARE Would you like to be given the opportunity to be present with a loved family member should 3. they need to be resuscitated in a hospital setting? a YES b. NO Have you ever been approached by a family member wishing to be present in the resuscitation 4. room during treatment? a YES b. NO 42 5. Have you ever been involved in a situation where family members have witnessed resuscitation procedures wither in a hospital setting? a. YES (Please answer 5. a)) b. NO 5. a)If yes, in your experience what were there (circle option/s and write comment) a BENEFITS: b. DISADVANTAGES: 6. Would you be prepared to share your experience with us? c. YES (Please writ you name at the end of the questionnaire) d. NO Please indicate your main concerns about having family members present during 7. resuscitation: (Please circle letter indicating option you choose, you may choose more than one option if you wish). a They may be disruptive to staff members working. b. They may interfere with treatment. c. The procedures involved may offend family members. d. Staff may be offended by family members. e. Emotional stress on staff would be increased f. The general public are not equipped to deal with being present during resuscitation. & h. Family members have o right to be present during resuscitation. i. Legal proceedings may arise from their presence. There is no benefit to be gained from family presence during resuscitation. Other reasons (Please indicate): Thank you for your assistance with our study Please return the completed questionnaire to the nominated person. 43 Appendix B Staff Attitudes Towards Family Presence During Resuscitation B The purpose of this questionnaire is to identify what opinions hospital staff have on the issue of allowing family members to be present during resuscitation of a loved one. Please fill in the appropriate circle. 1. You are a: O physician O nurse 2. Would you consider inviting family members of a patient being treated into the emergency room during resuscitation procedures? o o o o always maybe, at predetermined times under controlled circumstances only at the discretion of the medical person in charge of the patient's care never 3. Would you like to be given the opportunity to be present with a loved family member should they need to be resuscitated in a hospital setting? O 4. Have you ever been approached by a family member wishing to be present in the resuscitation room during treatment? ..................................... o o 5. Have you ever been involved in a situation where family members have witnessed resuscitation procedures in a hospital setting? ............................................................... ............................................... o o Y N o 6- If yes to #5, in your experience were there: O benefits O disadvantages Comments Y 7. If yes to #5, are you prepared to share your experience? If yes, please describe. Please continue to page 2 01E Page 1 N 44 Staff Attitudes Towards Family Presence During Resuscitation (pg. 2) MB 8. Please indicate your main concerns about having family members present during resuscitation. (Mark ALL that apply) O They may be disruptive to staff members working. O They may interfere with treatment. O The procedures involved may offend family members. O Staff may be offended by family members. O Emotional stress on staff would be increased. O The general public is not equipped to deal with being present during resuscitation O Family members have a right to be present during resuscitation. O There is no benefit to be gained from family presence during resuscitation. O Legal proceedings may arise from their presence. Ocher concerns or reasons Thank you for your assistance with this study. Please place the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided and return it to the ED secretary. 01E Page 2 B 45 Appendix C Wednesday 10 February 1999 Mr. T. White 408 Plum Street Edinboro Pennsylvania 16412-2136 USA Dear Tom, This document is given as consent on behalf of Bernice Redley and myself for use of our questionnaire related to family presence in resuscitation. Good luck, we look forward to hearing your results! Yours Sincerely, Kerry Hood Emergency Department Dandenong Hospital Dandenong Victoria 3175 Australia 46 Appendix D Application to Conduct Research Page 3 of 4 Device Studies Is the approved device used in an non-approved applications)? Where will the device be stored? _________________ Who will be responsible for control of device? Yes No Device IDE#: Manufacturer: Discipline Specific Peer Review: (indicate 2 persons and their phone numbers) Investigator’s Statement I certify that all the information contained in this application is a true and accurate synopsis of the planned research. I agree to abide by the decisions of the IRB, policies of Saint Vincent and regulations of the FDA, DHHS and other appropriate agencies. 1 further agree to: • • • • • notify the IRB of any adverse effects, either locally or nationally; make no changes except to eliminate immediate hazards and notify the IRB of those changes; monitor the research and report as required; alert a subject that may be placed at risk or jeopardy; and notify the IRB at the conclusion of the study and submit a written report on noteworthy information or data. Principal-Investigator’s Signature Date Feasibility and Resources I agree that ins feasible to conduct this research study in the designated area(s) — SVHC Leader or Medical/Surgical Department Chair’s Signature Date I agree that the research can be conducted within Saint Vincent Health System using Saint Vincent X) time GK personnel 5^:facilities Er"' _— SyHC-Eeader or Medical/Suijgical Department Chair s Signature Date 47 Appendix E February 26, 1999 Dear Health Care Provider, Family witnessed resuscitation is an issue that faces health care providers in the emergency department setting. In many health care institutions, it is standard practice that family members be escorted out of the resuscitation room during cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts. Despite the feet that some family members would like to be given to opportunity to remain with their loved one, health care providers do not always give immediate family members this option. Your name is one of a small number of health care providers who are being asked to give their opinion on this issue. In order that the results will truly represent the thinking of health care providers in the emergency department setting, it is important that each questionnaire be completed and returned. Your input is an important part of determining the current belief of health care providers in this arena. By completing the questionnaire, you are implying consent to be in the study. You may be assured of complete confidentiality, as this questionnaire does not require you to provide any personal information. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. The results of this questionnaire will be made available to Edinboro University. You may receive a summary of results by writing “copy of results requested” on the back of the return envelope, and printing your name and address below it. Please do not put this information on the questionnaire itself Upon completing the questionnaire, please place it in the envelope provided and return it promptly to the department secretary. Again, please do not put any personal information on the questionnaire. I would be most happy to answer any questions you might have. Please write or call The telephone number is (814) 734-3365. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, C I'vb S J. Thomas White, BSN, RN, CEN Candidate for Masters Degree in Nursing Edinboro University of Pennsylvania 48 Appendix F March 1, 1999 Dear Health Care Provider, One week ago I sent you a questionnaire seeking your opinion about family witnessed resuscitation. Your opinion is very valuable to the outcome of this study. If you have already completed and returned the survey to the department secretary, please accept my sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. Because it has been sent to only a small sample of health care providers, it is extremely important that yours also be included in the study if the results are to accurately represent the opinions of health care providers. If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced, please see the department secretary who will provide you with another one. Once again, thank you for your participation. Sincerely, JU Thomas White, BSN, RN, CEN Candidate for Masters Degree in Nursing Edinboro University of Pennsylvania 49 Appendix G Saint Vincent Health Center 232 West 25 Street Erie, Pennsylvania 16544 814/452-5000 February 26, 1999 Thomas White 408 Plum Street Edinboro, PA 16412-2136 Dear Tom: Your thesis proposal, “Exploring Attitudes of Health Care Providers Towards the Presence of Family Members During Adult Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Efforts in the Emergency Department,” has been reviewed by the Research Office. I am pleased to inform you that you have permission to conduct the study. Congratulations and good luck with your investigation! If you have any questions or need additional support, call the Research Office at (814) 452-5701. Once the study is completed, please prepare an abstract for our file on the study. Guidelines for preparing the abstract are attached. Sincerely, SAINT VINCENT HEALTH CENTER •J n. & Dorothy S. Carlson, DEd, RN Research Office /dsc