ArticleResuscitation plus2024
A survey study of healthcare workers on do not Attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation practice and policy in Ireland.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) codes record the decision to withhold CPR in cases of circulatory arrest. These decisions involve various clinical, ethical and legal complexities promoting increased focus on the decision-making process. This research sought to capture healthcare workers perspective on DNACPR practices and policies in Ireland. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive survey utilising a questionnaire developed and piloted for this study to gather responses on open and closed questions. Data were analysed using SPSS and content analysis. Study is reported in line with the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies reporting guidelines. Results: 784 participants including doctors, nurses, paramedics and other healthcare workers completed the questionnaire. 80.5 % (n = 625) of participants rated their knowledge of DNACPR decision-making as fair or better. 77.5 % (n = 601) of participants understood DNACPR to mean 'no chest compressions, defibrillation or artificial ventilation in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest'. A majority of participants (60.2 % n = 467) had experienced a degree of conflict related to a DNACPR decision. 245 (31.25%) participants provided comments which addressed issues such as communication, education, pressure surrounding DNACPR decisions, the role of national guidelines/documentation, and legal concerns. Conclusion: The findings reveal gaps in healthcare workers' understanding and familiarity with DNACPR policies, highlighting the need for improved patient involvement and proactive discussions. Effective communication and comprehensive training are crucial, as communication remains a significant barrier. While national policies can provide clarity, increasing awareness and understanding of these policies among healthcare workers is essential.
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.