Kinsarah Iyad S, AlZahrani Nawaf A, Gaafar Amro M, Hamam Anas F
Emergency Medicine, King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital, Jeddah, SAU.
Cureus. 2024 Aug 30;16(8):e68218. doi: 10.7759/cureus.68218. eCollection 2024 Aug.
Background Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) has been a long-debated topic in medical circles in the last 40 years. Studies usually concentrate on the opinions and responses of the family members of the patients being resuscitated. Only a handful of studies have focussed on the medical practitioner's opinions and beliefs on the topic. Hence, this study aimed to investigate opinions and beliefs regarding FPDR among emergency medicine practitioners (EMPs) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methodology This was a self-filled, questionnaire-based study conducted among 450 EMPs across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Proportions and subgroup analyses were conducted with respect to gender, experience, and seniority. EMPs were asked about the number of family members they would allow to attend the resuscitation of a patient under their care in different clinical scenarios. Results A total of 392 (87.1%) EMPs participated in this study. Overall, 64% (n = 250) of EMPs reported that they would not allow FPDR in cases that involved trauma, or if the patient being revived was female. This percentage dropped to about 33% (n = 129) when the patient being resuscitated was a child or in out-of-hospital arrest. The majority of EMPs believed that the decision to allow FPDR was the physician's decision (n = 251, 64.8%) and not the right of the family (n = 133, 34.7%). Moreover, emergency medicine board-certified physicians were more likely to allow FPDR in different cases with 19 (18.5%) in adult arrest cases, 18 (18%) in pediatric cases, and 16 (15.1%) in trauma cases, than non-board-certified practitioners (p = 0.001, 0.007, and 0.031, respectively). Female EMPs were more likely to refuse FPDR than their male counterparts (p < 0.001). Conclusions Approximately, 60-70% of EMPs allowed a member of the family to attend the resuscitation of their loved one. However, this percentage dropped in cases where the patient was a female, or the case was a trauma case instead of a medical case. Most Saudi EMPs believed that FPDR hurts the resuscitating team and might hinder the resuscitation efforts.
在过去40年里，复苏期间家属在场（FPDR）一直是医学界长期争论的话题。研究通常集中在接受复苏患者家属的意见和反应上。只有少数研究关注了医生对该话题的意见和看法。因此，本研究旨在调查沙特阿拉伯王国急诊医学从业者（EMPs）对FPDR的意见和看法。
这是一项在沙特阿拉伯王国450名EMPs中进行的基于问卷调查的自填式研究。对性别、经验和资历进行了比例和亚组分析。询问EMPs在不同临床场景下他们会允许多少名家属参加其负责患者的复苏。
共有392名（87.1%）EMPs参与了本研究。总体而言，64%（n = 250）的EMPs报告称，在涉及创伤的情况下，或者如果被复苏的患者是女性，他们不会允许FPDR。当被复苏的患者是儿童或院外心脏骤停时，这一比例降至约33%（n = 129）。大多数EMPs认为允许FPDR的决定是医生的决定（n = 251，64.8%），而不是家属的权利（n = 133，34.7%）。此外，与未获得急诊医学委员会认证的从业者相比，获得急诊医学委员会认证的医生在不同情况下更有可能允许FPDR，在成人心脏骤停病例中有19名（18.5%），儿科病例中有18名（18%），创伤病例中有16名（15.1%）（分别为p = 0.001、0.007和0.031）。女性EMPs比男性EMPs更有可能拒绝FPDR（p < 0.001）。
大约60 - 70%的EMPs允许家属成员参加其亲人的复苏。然而，当患者是女性或病例是创伤病例而非医疗病例时，这一比例会下降。大多数沙特EMPs认为FPDR会对复苏团队造成伤害，并可能阻碍复苏工作。
