Hartanto Michelle, Moore Gavin, Robbins Timothy, Suthantirakumar Risheka, Slowther Anne-Marie
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.
University of Warwick Medical School, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Resusc Plus. 2023 Jan 7;13:100351. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100351. eCollection 2023 Mar.
To conduct a qualitative systematic review on the experiences of patients, families, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) of CPR decision-making conversations in the United Kingdom (UK).
The databases PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched. Studies published from 1 January 2012 describing experiences of CPR decision-making conversations in the UK were included. Included studies were critically appraised using the CASP tool. Thematic synthesis was conducted.
From 684 papers identified, ten studies were included. Four key themes were identified:(i) Initiation of conversations - Key prompts for the discussion included clinical deterioration and poor prognosis. There are different perspectives about who should initiate conversations.(ii) Involvement of patients and families - HCPs were reluctant to involve patients who they thought would become distressed by the conversation, while patients varied in their desire to be involved. Patients wanted family support while HCPs viewed families as potential sources of conflict.(iii) Influences on the content of conversations - Location, context, HCPs' attitudes and emotions, and uncertainty of prognosis influenced the content of conversations.(iv) Conversation outcomes - Range of outcomes included emotional distress, sense of relief and value, disagreements, and incomplete conversations.
There is inconsistency in how these conversations occur, patients' desire to be involved, and between patients' and HCPs' views on the role of families in these conversations. CPR discussions raise ethical challenges for HCPs. HCPs need training and pastoral support in conducting CPR discussions. Patients and families need education on CPR recommendations and support after discussions.
对英国患者、家属及医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)在心肺复苏(CPR)决策对话方面的经历进行定性系统评价。
检索了PubMed、Embase、Emcare、CINAHL和PsycInfo数据库。纳入2012年1月1日以来发表的描述英国CPR决策对话经历的研究。使用CASP工具对纳入研究进行严格评价。进行了主题综合分析。
从检索到的684篇论文中,纳入了10项研究。确定了四个关键主题:(i)对话的启动——讨论的关键提示包括临床病情恶化和预后不良。对于应由谁启动对话存在不同观点。(ii)患者和家属的参与——HCPs不愿让他们认为会因对话而痛苦的患者参与,而患者参与的意愿各不相同。患者希望得到家人的支持,而HCPs则将家人视为潜在的冲突来源。(iii)对话内容的影响因素——地点、背景、HCPs的态度和情绪以及预后的不确定性影响了对话的内容。(iv)对话结果——结果范围包括情绪困扰、宽慰感和价值感、分歧以及不完整的对话。
这些对话的发生方式、患者参与的意愿以及患者和HCPs对家属在这些对话中作用的看法存在不一致。CPR讨论给HCPs带来了伦理挑战。HCPs在进行CPR讨论时需要培训和精神支持。患者和家属在讨论后需要接受关于CPR建议的教育和支持。