Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: The effect of family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the family members themselves and the medical team remains controversial. METHODS: We enrolled 570 relatives of patients who were in cardiac arrest and were given CPR by 15 prehospital emergency medical service units. The units were randomly assigned either to systematically offer the family member the opportunity to observe CPR (intervention group) or to follow standard practice regarding family presence (control group). The primary end point was the proportion of relatives with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms on day 90. Secondary end points included the presence of anxiety and depression symptoms and the effect of family presence on medical efforts at resuscitation, the well-being of the health care team, and the occurrence of medicolegal claims. RESULTS: In the intervention group, 211 of 266 relatives (79%) witnessed CPR, as compared with 131 of 304 relatives (43%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the frequency of PTSD-related symptoms was significantly higher in the control group than in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 2.5; P=0.004) and among family members who did not witness CPR than among those who did (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.5; P=0.02). Relatives who did not witness CPR had symptoms of anxiety and depression more frequently than those who did witness CPR. Family-witnessed CPR did not affect resuscitation characteristics, patient survival, or the level of emotional stress in the medical team and did not result in medicolegal claims. CONCLUSIONS: Family presence during CPR was associated with positive results on psychological variables and did not interfere with medical efforts, increase stress in the health care team, or result in medicolegal conflicts. (Funded by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2008 of the French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01009606.).

Evaluation of the Ability of Emergency Room Doctors at a French University Hospital Center to Identify Adverse Drug Events.

OBJECTIVES: Numerous adverse drug events (ADEs) are not identified by doctors in medical emergencies, and they are a barrier to optimal treatment of patients. Identification of the factors that influence awareness of ADEs by doctors could allow events that compromise patient safety to be avoided. The aims of this study were to quantify the recognition of ADEs by emergency room (ER) doctors and to identify the factors associated with the lack of identification of drug-related risks. METHODS: This study was carried out at the ER of a French teaching hospital between January 1, 2014, and the December 31, 2017. A previously used form was administered to the patients being treated in the ER, and it was completed using medical files to identify ADEs. The ADEs were then validated by a doctor and a senior pharmacist. RESULTS: Of the 1870 included patients, 279 (14.9%) exhibited an ADE. Of these 279 ADEs, 201 (72%) had been identified by the doctor. The probability of an ADE being identified was higher when the drug was directly linked with the main ailment of the patient (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.97). Adverse drug events were identified less well when their severity was limited (spontaneous regression without treatment) (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that ADEs are identified less well when their severity is limited, as well as when the ADE is not directly linked with the main ailment of the patient.

Offering the opportunity for family to be present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: 1-year assessment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the psychological consequences among family members given the option to be present during the CPR of a relative, compared with those not routinely offered the option. METHODS: Prospective, cluster-randomized, controlled trial involving 15 prehospital emergency medical services units in France, comparing systematic offer for a relative to witness CPR with the traditional practice among 570 family members. Main outcome measure was 1-year assessment included proportion suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression symptoms, and/or complicated grief. RESULTS: Among the 570 family members [intention to treat (ITT) population], 408 (72%) were evaluated at 1 year. In the ITT population (N = 570), family members had PTSD-related symptoms significantly more frequently in the control group than in the intervention group [adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-3.0; P = 0.02] as did family members to whom physicians did not propose witnessing CPR [adjusted odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.6; P = 0.02]. In the observed cases population (N = 408), the proportion of family members experiencing a major depressive episode was significantly higher in the control group (31 vs. 23%; P = 0.02) and among family members to whom physicians did not propose the opportunity to witness CPR (31 vs. 24%; P = 0.03). The presence of complicated grief was significantly greater in the control group (36 vs. 21%; P = 0.005) and among family members to whom physicians did not propose the opportunity to witness resuscitation (37 vs. 23%; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year after the event, psychological benefits persist for those family members offered the possibility to witness the CPR of a relative in cardiac arrest.