Centre de Recherche en Terminologie et Traduction (CRTT), Université Lumière Lyon 2, Lyon, 69007, France; Prehospital, Resuscitation and Emergency Care Research Unit (PRECRU), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia.
Prehospital, Resuscitation and Emergency Care Research Unit (PRECRU), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia; St John Ambulance Western Australia, Belmont, WA, 6104, Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jul;256:113045. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113045. Epub 2020 May 20.
A key objective of an emergency call for cardiac arrest is to recruit a bystander to perform cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) until the ambulance arrives. Emergency medical services worldwide work towards increasing the rate of bystander-CPR, and existing research has identified a number of physical barriers to the provision of bystander-CPR. Yet, little is known about the specific ways in which emergency callers resist recruitment to perform basic first-aid, sometimes in the absence of any physical obstacle. This study investigated 65 emergency calls for cardiac arrest received in Australia in 2014 and 2015, in which the callers initially resisted CPR. We used conversation analysis to examine callers' practices to resist recruitment and call-takers' practices to counter this resistance. We found that callers who resisted CPR typically provided an account. When callers accounted for their resistance on deontic grounds, they expressed that CPR was not a possible course of action (e.g. "I can't do it"). When callers provided an epistemic account, their justification was based on their knowledge or opinion (e.g. "I think it's too late"). Our findings suggest that epistemic resistance can be a barrier to bystander-CPR. We identified two practices used by call-takers to address caller resistance based on epistemics. Providing more context on the purpose of CPR (e.g. "this is to help him in the meantime") seemed effective in persuading callers to perform CPR. By contrast, aligning with the caller's epistemic and deontic rights (e.g. "it's up to you") did not seem effective in persuading callers.
心脏骤停急救的一个主要目标是招募旁观者进行心肺复苏(CPR),直到救护车到达。全球的紧急医疗服务机构都致力于提高旁观者实施 CPR 的比率,现有的研究已经确定了实施旁观者 CPR 的一些实际障碍。然而,对于紧急呼叫者在没有任何实际障碍的情况下拒绝提供基本急救的具体方式,人们知之甚少。本研究调查了 2014 年和 2015 年澳大利亚接到的 65 例心脏骤停急救电话,其中呼叫者最初拒绝实施 CPR。我们使用会话分析来研究呼叫者拒绝提供援助的做法,以及呼叫接线员为了克服这种阻力而采取的应对措施。我们发现,拒绝实施 CPR 的呼叫者通常会给出一个理由。当呼叫者从道义上为自己的拒绝提供解释时,他们表示 CPR 不是一种可行的行动方案(例如,“我做不到”)。当呼叫者提供知识论解释时,他们的理由是基于他们的知识或意见(例如,“我认为为时已晚”)。我们的研究结果表明,知识论上的拒绝可能是旁观者实施 CPR 的障碍。我们确定了呼叫接线员用来应对呼叫者拒绝的两种基于认识论的做法。提供更多关于 CPR 目的的背景信息(例如,“这是为了暂时帮助他”)似乎可以有效地说服呼叫者实施 CPR。相比之下,与呼叫者的认识论和道义论权利保持一致(例如,“这取决于你”)似乎并不能有效地说服呼叫者。