ArticleCritical care explorations2024
Perceptions on Specialist Palliative Care Involvement During and After Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an exceptional physical situation and may lead to significant psychological, spiritual, and social distress in patients and their next of kin. Furthermore, clinicians might experience distress related to a CPR event. Specialist palliative care (sPC) integration could address these aspects but is not part of routine care.
objectivesThis study aimed to explore perspectives on sPC integration during and after CPR. A needs assessment for sPC, possible triggers indicating need, and implementation strategies were addressed. DESIGN SETTING AND
participantsA multiprofessional qualitative semistructured focus group study was conducted in a German urban academic teaching hospital. Participants were clinicians (nursing staff, residents, and consultants) working in the emergency department and ICUs (internal medicine and surgical). ANALYSIS: The focus groups were recorded and subsequently transcribed. Data material was analyzed using the content-structuring content analysis according to Kuckartz.
resultsSeven focus groups with 18 participants in total were conducted online from July to November 2022. Six main categories (two to five subcategories) were identified: understanding (of palliative care and death), general CPR conditions (e.g., team, debriefing, and strains), prognosis (e.g., preexisting situation, use of extracorporeal support), next of kin (e.g., communication, presence during CPR), treatment plan (patient will and decision-making), and implementation of sPC (e.g., timing, trigger factors).
conclusionsPerceptions about the need for sPC to support during and after CPR depend on roles, areas of practice, and individual understanding of sPC. Although some participants perceive CPR itself as a trigger for sPC, others define, for example, pre-CPR-existing multimorbidity or complex family dynamics as possible triggers. Suggestions for implementation are multifaceted, especially communication by sPC is emphasized. Specific challenges of extracorporeal CPR need to be explored further. Overall, the focus groups show that the topic is considered relevant, and studies on outcomes are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.