Misconceptions and do-not-resuscitate preferences of healthcare professionals commonly involved in cardiopulmonary resuscitations: A national survey

[Display omitted] To assess the DNR preferences of critical care-, anesthesia- and emergency medicine practitioners, to identify factors influencing decision-making, and to raise awareness for misconceptions concerning CPR outcomes. A nationwide multicenter survey was conducted in Switzerland confro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Resuscitation plus 2024-03, Vol.17, p.100575-100575, Article 100575
Hauptverfasser: Amacher, Simon A., Gross, Sebastian, Becker, Christoph, Arpagaus, Armon, Urben, Tabita, Gaab, Jens, Emsden, Christian, Tisljar, Kai, Sutter, Raoul, Pargger, Hans, Marsch, Stephan, Hunziker, Sabina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:[Display omitted] To assess the DNR preferences of critical care-, anesthesia- and emergency medicine practitioners, to identify factors influencing decision-making, and to raise awareness for misconceptions concerning CPR outcomes. A nationwide multicenter survey was conducted in Switzerland confronting healthcare professionals with a case vignette of an adult patient with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The primary outcome was the rate of DNR Code Status vs. CPR Code Status when taking the perspective from a clinical case vignette of a 70-year-old patient. Secondary outcomes were participants’ personal preferences for DNR and estimates of survival with good neurological outcome after in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Within 1803 healthcare professionals, DNR code status was preferred in 85% (n = 1532) in the personal perspective of the case vignette and 53.2% (n = 932) when making a decision for themselves. Main predictors for a DNR Code Status regarding the case vignette included preferences for DNR Code Status for themselves (n [%] 896 [58.5] vs. 87 [32.1]; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.25–3.92; p 
ISSN:2666-5204
2666-5204
DOI:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100575