- Email: [email protected]
Preferences regarding code status among different healthcare workers
Abstracts / Resuscitation 96S (2015) 43–157
121
Table 1 Mean time per item. Safe approach
Check responsive ness; talk
Check responsive ness; shake
Check responsive ness; shout for help
Open airway
Check breathing phone 112
Compression to rescue breath
Switch on AED
Remove clothing
Recognition clothing
Recognition medal
Defibrillator electrode pads attached
Shock button pushed
3.00 4.767 2.38 1.193
4.03 1.732 4.50 2.251
5.06 2.190 5.32 2.239
19.64 21.741 15.80 16.525
14.22 21.397 10.32 3.923
11.06 5.210 12.03 8.446
24.42 17.231 23.54 11.643
28.12 9.450 40.31 47.068
66.38 33.708 85.89 52.432
52.37 33.725 46.58 30.403
76.34 47.009 60.28 42.228
86.00 27.275 100.21 37.955
116.56 29.616 146.33 53.895
AP190 Preferences regarding code status among different healthcare workers Jose Maria Martin del Campo 1,∗ , Luis Omar Chavez 1 , Sharon Einav 2 , Joseph Varon 1 1 2
Fig. 1. The DNR-medal used during the test.
Fig. 2. Testscenario.
Conclusions: Lay rescuers seem to be well informed about the non-resuscitation medal. However, 23,1% EMS professionals still decides to continue help.
University General Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA Shaare Tzedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
Purpose: The preferences of people working in a healthcare environment regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation may vary according to their profession. The purpose of this study was to identify personal code status preferences in relation to profession. Methods: After receiving institutional board review approval, a multicenter study was performed in 9 institutions. An anonymous, self-completed, “End-of-Life questionnaire” of multiple variables first underwent content and expert validation, and then was distributed to all the hospital staff. Results: Among the 858 completed questionnaires, 852 surveys included data regarding respondent profession and code preference. The largest number of respondents were nurses (36.9%, n = 317) and doctors (21%, n = 180). Additional respondents included medical students (10.5%, n = 90), bio-technicians (5.7%, n = 49), patient-care assistants (4.3%, n = 37) and miscellaneous additional staff (20.9%, n = 178). Doctors’ preferences for code status were “Definitely full code” 73.2% (n = 131), “Definitely no code” 5.0% (n = 9), “full pharmacologic support but no intubation or chest compressions” 3.4% (n = 6) and “I have never thought about it” 18.4% (n = 33). Nurses preferences were “Definitely full code” 64.2% (n = 194), “Definitely no code” 7.9% (n = 24), “full pharmacologic support but no intubation or chest compressions” 8.6% (n = 26) and “I have never thought about it” 19.2% (n = 58). Other hospital workers’ preferences were “Definitely full code” 55.1% (n = 173), “Definitely no code” 8.6% (n = 27), “full pharmacologic support but no intubation or chest compressions 8.6% (n = 27) and “I have never thought about it” 27.7% (n = 87). No difference was observed between the preference of doctors and nurses (p = 0.059) but a significant difference was observed between doctors and other hospital workers (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The majority of doctors and nurses would prefer to undergo a full resuscitation attempt if they had a cardiac arrest. This preference was stronger among doctors than among other hospital workers, who were less likely to have considered such an event. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.09.287
References 1. Letter concerning one uniform non-resuscitation medal of 11 November 2014 (2014Z14120). The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS); 2014. 2. Zijlstra JA, Beesems SG, De Haan RJ, Koster RW. Psychological impact on dispatched local lay rescuers performing bystander. Resuscitation 2015;92:115–21. 3. Van Drenth J, Henny W, Koster RW, De Vries W. Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 in The Netherlands and Belgium; Basic Life Support to Adults. Uden/Leuven Dutch Resuscitation Council/Belgian Resuscitation Council; 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.09.286
121
Table 1 Mean time per item. Safe approach
Check responsive ness; talk
Check responsive ness; shake
Check responsive ness; shout for help
Open airway
Check breathing phone 112
Compression to rescue breath
Switch on AED
Remove clothing
Recognition clothing
Recognition medal
Defibrillator electrode pads attached
Shock button pushed
3.00 4.767 2.38 1.193
4.03 1.732 4.50 2.251
5.06 2.190 5.32 2.239
19.64 21.741 15.80 16.525
14.22 21.397 10.32 3.923
11.06 5.210 12.03 8.446
24.42 17.231 23.54 11.643
28.12 9.450 40.31 47.068
66.38 33.708 85.89 52.432
52.37 33.725 46.58 30.403
76.34 47.009 60.28 42.228
86.00 27.275 100.21 37.955
116.56 29.616 146.33 53.895
AP190 Preferences regarding code status among different healthcare workers Jose Maria Martin del Campo 1,∗ , Luis Omar Chavez 1 , Sharon Einav 2 , Joseph Varon 1 1 2
Fig. 1. The DNR-medal used during the test.
Fig. 2. Testscenario.
Conclusions: Lay rescuers seem to be well informed about the non-resuscitation medal. However, 23,1% EMS professionals still decides to continue help.
University General Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA Shaare Tzedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
Purpose: The preferences of people working in a healthcare environment regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation may vary according to their profession. The purpose of this study was to identify personal code status preferences in relation to profession. Methods: After receiving institutional board review approval, a multicenter study was performed in 9 institutions. An anonymous, self-completed, “End-of-Life questionnaire” of multiple variables first underwent content and expert validation, and then was distributed to all the hospital staff. Results: Among the 858 completed questionnaires, 852 surveys included data regarding respondent profession and code preference. The largest number of respondents were nurses (36.9%, n = 317) and doctors (21%, n = 180). Additional respondents included medical students (10.5%, n = 90), bio-technicians (5.7%, n = 49), patient-care assistants (4.3%, n = 37) and miscellaneous additional staff (20.9%, n = 178). Doctors’ preferences for code status were “Definitely full code” 73.2% (n = 131), “Definitely no code” 5.0% (n = 9), “full pharmacologic support but no intubation or chest compressions” 3.4% (n = 6) and “I have never thought about it” 18.4% (n = 33). Nurses preferences were “Definitely full code” 64.2% (n = 194), “Definitely no code” 7.9% (n = 24), “full pharmacologic support but no intubation or chest compressions” 8.6% (n = 26) and “I have never thought about it” 19.2% (n = 58). Other hospital workers’ preferences were “Definitely full code” 55.1% (n = 173), “Definitely no code” 8.6% (n = 27), “full pharmacologic support but no intubation or chest compressions 8.6% (n = 27) and “I have never thought about it” 27.7% (n = 87). No difference was observed between the preference of doctors and nurses (p = 0.059) but a significant difference was observed between doctors and other hospital workers (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The majority of doctors and nurses would prefer to undergo a full resuscitation attempt if they had a cardiac arrest. This preference was stronger among doctors than among other hospital workers, who were less likely to have considered such an event. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.09.287
References 1. Letter concerning one uniform non-resuscitation medal of 11 November 2014 (2014Z14120). The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS); 2014. 2. Zijlstra JA, Beesems SG, De Haan RJ, Koster RW. Psychological impact on dispatched local lay rescuers performing bystander. Resuscitation 2015;92:115–21. 3. Van Drenth J, Henny W, Koster RW, De Vries W. Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 in The Netherlands and Belgium; Basic Life Support to Adults. Uden/Leuven Dutch Resuscitation Council/Belgian Resuscitation Council; 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.09.286