Search Results (2)

Background: Professional knowledge and experience of healthcare organization went through continuous change and development with the progression of COVID-19 pandemic waves. However, carefully developed guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remained largely unchanged regardless of the epidemic situation, with the largest change being a more prominent bioethical approach. It would be possible to further improve the quality of CPR by systematic data collection, the facilitation of prospective studies, and further development of the methodology based on this evidence, as well as by providing information and developing provisions on interventions with expected poor outcomes, and ultimately by refusing resuscitation. Methods: This study involved the critical collection and analysis of literary data originating from the Web of Science and PubMed databases concerning bioethical aspects and the efficacy of CPR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: According to the current professional recommendation of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC), CPR should be initiated immediately in case of cardiac arrest in the absence of an exclusionary circumstance. One such circumstance is explicit refusal of CPR by a well-informed patient, which in practice takes the form of a prior declaration. ERC prescribes the following conjunctive conditions for do-not-attempt CPR (DNACPR) declarations: present, real, and applicable. It is recommended to take the declaration as a part of complex end-of-life planning, with the corresponding documentation available in an electronic database. The pandemic has brought significant changes in resuscitation practice at both lay and professional levels as well. Incidence of out-of-hospital resuscitation (OHCA) did not differ compared to the previous period, while cardiac deaths in public places almost halved during the epidemic (p < 0.001) as did the use of AEDs (p = 0.037). The number of resuscitations performed by bystanders and by the emergency medical service (EMS) also showed a significant decrease (p = 0.001), and the most important interventions (defibrillation, first adrenaline time) suffered a significant delay. Secondary survival until hospital discharge thus decreased by 50% during the pandemic period. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic provided a significant impetus to the revision of guidelines. While detailed methodology has changed only slightly compared to the previous procedures, the DNACPR declaration regarding self-determination is mentioned in the context of complex end-of-life planning. The issue of safe environment has come to the fore for both lay and trained resuscitators. Future Directions: Prospective evaluation of standardized methods can further improve the patient’s autonomy and quality of life. Since clinical data are controversial, further prospective controlled studies are needed to evaluate the real hazards of aerosol-generating procedures. Full article

Background: It is unclear whether doctors base their resuscitation decisions solely on their perceived outcome. Through the use of theoretical scenarios, we aimed to examine the ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decision-making. Methods: A questionnaire survey was sent to consultants and specialty trainees across two Norfolk (UK) hospitals during December 2013. The survey included demographic questions and six clinical scenarios with varying prognosis. Participants were asked if they would resuscitate the patient or not. Identical scenarios were then shown in a different order and doctors were asked to quantify patients’ estimated chance of survival. Results: A total of 137 individuals (mean age 41 years (SD 7.9%)) responded. The response rate was 69%. Approximately 60% were consultants. We found considerable variation in clinician estimates of median chance of survival. In three out of six of our scenarios, the survival estimated varied from <1% to 95%. There was a statistically significant difference identified in the estimated median survival between those clinicians who would or would not resuscitate in four of the six scenarios presented. Conclusion: This study has highlighted the wide variation between clinicians in their estimates of likely survival and little concordance between clinicians over their resuscitation decisions. The diversity in clinician decision-making should be explored further. Full article