RESUMO
Background: Following the emergence of COVID-19, there have been local and national changes in the way emergency medical service (EMS) staff respond to and treat patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The views of EMS staff on the impact of COVID-19 and management of OHCA have not previously been explored. This study aimed to explore the views of staff, with a specific focus on communication during resuscitation, resuscitation procedures and the perception of risk. Methods: A qualitative phenomenological enquiry was conducted. A purposive sample of n = 20 participants of various clinical grades was selected from NHS EMS providers in the United Kingdom. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, transcribed verbatim and inductive thematic analysis was applied. Results: Three main themes emerged which varied according to clinical grade, location and guidelines.Decision making: Staff generally felt supported to make best-interest termination of resuscitation decisions. Staff made informed decisions to compromise on recommended levels of personal protective equipment (PPE), since it felt impractical in the pre-hospital context, to improve communication or to reduce delays to care.Service pressures: Availability of operational staff and in-hospital capacity were reduced. Staff felt pressure and disconnect from the continuous updates to clinical guidelines which resulted in organisational change fatigue.Moral injury: The emotional impacts of prolonged and frequent exposure to failed resuscitation attempts and patient death caused many staff to take time away from work to recover. Conclusion: This qualitative study is the first known to explore staff views on the impacts of COVID-19 on OHCA resuscitation, which found positive outcomes but also negative impacts important to inform EMS systems. Staff felt that COVID-19 created delays to the delivery of resuscitation, which were multi-faceted. Staff developed new ways of working to overcome the barriers of impractical PPE. There was little impact on resuscitation procedures. Moving forwards, EMS should consider how to limit organisational change and better support the ongoing emotional impacts on staff.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Evidenced-based guidelines on when to cease resuscitation for pulseless electrical activity are limited and support for paramedics typically defaults to the senior clinician. Senior clinicians include paramedics employed to work beyond the scope of clinical guidelines as there may be a point at which it is reasonable to cease resuscitation. To support these decisions, one ambulance service has applied a locally derived cessation of resuscitation checklist. This study aimed to describe the patient, clinical and system factors and examine senior clinician experiences when ceasing resuscitation for pulseless electrical activity. DESIGN AND METHODS: An explanatory sequential mixed method study was conducted in one ambulance service in the South West of England. A consecutive sample of checklist data for adult pulseless electrical activity were retrieved from 1st December 2015 to 31st December 2018. Unexpected results which required exploration were identified and developed into semi-structured interview questions. A purposive sample of senior clinicians who ceased resuscitation and applied the checklist were interviewed. Content framework analysis was applied to the qualitative findings. RESULTS: Senior clinicians ceased resuscitation for 50 patients in the presence of factors known to optimise survival: Witnessed cardiac arrest (n = 37, 74%), bystander resuscitation (n = 30, 60%), defibrillation (n = 22, 44%), return of spontaneous circulation (n = 8, 16%). Significant association was found between witnessed cardiac arrest and bystander resuscitation (p = .00). Six senior clinicians were interviewed, and analysis resulted in four themes: defining resuscitation futility, the impact of ceasing resuscitation, conflicting views and clinical decision tools. In the local context, senior clinicians applied their clinical judgement to balance survivability. Multiple factors were considered as the decision to cease resuscitation was not always clear. Senior clinicians deviated from the checklist when the patient was perceived as non-survivable. CONCLUSION: Senior clinicians applied clinical judgement to assess patients as non-survivable or when continued resuscitation was considered harmful with no patient benefit. Senior clinicians perceived pre-existing factors with duration of resuscitation and clinical factors known to optimise patient survival. Future practice could look beyond a set criteria in which to cease resuscitation, however, it would be helpful to investigate the value or threshold of factors associated with patient outcome.
