What are ambulance crews' experiences of using a mechanical chest compression device for out-of-hospital resuscitation? A constructivist qualitative study utilising online focus groups.

Laura Blair, Richelle Duffy
{"title":"What are ambulance crews' experiences of using a mechanical chest compression device for out-of-hospital resuscitation? A constructivist qualitative study utilising online focus groups.","authors":"Laura Blair,&nbsp;Richelle Duffy","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2022.09.7.2.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mechanical chest compression devices (MCCDs) provide chest compressions mechanically to a person in cardiac arrest. Those chest compressions would usually be provided manually. Previous studies into the use of MCCDs have focused on the quantitative outcomes, with little emphasis on the qualitative experiences of those using MCCDs.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To collect and report ambulance crews' experiences of using MCCDs for out-of-hospital resuscitation attempts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The philosophical approach was constructivist, the methodology qualitative and the data collection method online focus groups. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants who met the inclusion criteria, which broadly were to have experience of using MCCDs for out-of-hospital resuscitation. There have been two types of MCCD used locally. Participants were included regardless of which type of device they had experience of. Similarly, participants were included whether they had active or passive experience of the devices. The focus groups were recorded, fully transcribed and then analysed using constant comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four selective codes emerged. These were factors directly affecting ambulance crew members; practicalities of a resuscitation attempt; ambulance crew members' perceptions, experiences and thoughts; negatives of MCCDs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The main perceptions arising from the participants' discussion in this work were that MCCD use could potentially provide psychological protection to ambulance crew members when reflecting on resuscitation attempts, and participants felt there is an overall reduction of cognitive load for ambulance crew members when using MCCDs for resuscitation attempts. There were particularly timely benefits expressed of MCCDs easing the physical fatigue of a resuscitation attempt when responding wearing personal protective equipment, as has been required during the COVID-19 pandemic. MCCDs were felt to be of benefit when transporting a patient in cardiac arrest but differences were expressed as to whether the LUCAS-2 in particular helps or hinders extrication of a patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":"7 2","pages":"24-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9662154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2022.09.7.2.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Mechanical chest compression devices (MCCDs) provide chest compressions mechanically to a person in cardiac arrest. Those chest compressions would usually be provided manually. Previous studies into the use of MCCDs have focused on the quantitative outcomes, with little emphasis on the qualitative experiences of those using MCCDs.

Purpose: To collect and report ambulance crews' experiences of using MCCDs for out-of-hospital resuscitation attempts.

Methods: The philosophical approach was constructivist, the methodology qualitative and the data collection method online focus groups. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants who met the inclusion criteria, which broadly were to have experience of using MCCDs for out-of-hospital resuscitation. There have been two types of MCCD used locally. Participants were included regardless of which type of device they had experience of. Similarly, participants were included whether they had active or passive experience of the devices. The focus groups were recorded, fully transcribed and then analysed using constant comparison.

Results: Four selective codes emerged. These were factors directly affecting ambulance crew members; practicalities of a resuscitation attempt; ambulance crew members' perceptions, experiences and thoughts; negatives of MCCDs.

Conclusion: The main perceptions arising from the participants' discussion in this work were that MCCD use could potentially provide psychological protection to ambulance crew members when reflecting on resuscitation attempts, and participants felt there is an overall reduction of cognitive load for ambulance crew members when using MCCDs for resuscitation attempts. There were particularly timely benefits expressed of MCCDs easing the physical fatigue of a resuscitation attempt when responding wearing personal protective equipment, as has been required during the COVID-19 pandemic. MCCDs were felt to be of benefit when transporting a patient in cardiac arrest but differences were expressed as to whether the LUCAS-2 in particular helps or hinders extrication of a patient.

救护人员使用机械胸外按压装置进行院外复苏的经验是什么?一项利用在线焦点小组的建构主义定性研究。
简介:机械胸外按压装置(mccd)为心脏骤停患者提供机械胸外按压。这些胸外按压通常是手工进行的。以往关于mccd使用的研究主要集中在定量结果上,很少强调使用mccd的人的定性经验。目的:收集和报告救护人员使用mccd进行院外复苏的经验。方法:哲学方法为建构主义,方法论方法为质化,数据收集方法为在线焦点小组。采用方便抽样方法招募符合纳入标准的参与者,该标准大致为具有使用mccd进行院外复苏的经验。本地使用的MCCD有两种。无论参与者使用过哪种类型的设备,他们都被包括在内。同样,参与者也被包括在内,无论他们是否有主动或被动的设备体验。对焦点群体进行记录,完整转录,然后使用持续比较进行分析。结果:出现4个选择性编码。这些都是直接影响救护人员的因素;复苏尝试的实用性;救护人员的知觉、经验和想法;mccd的底片。结论:在这项工作中,参与者讨论的主要看法是,使用MCCD可能会为救护人员在反思复苏尝试时提供心理保护,并且参与者认为,当使用MCCD进行复苏尝试时,救护人员的认知负荷总体上有所减少。在COVID-19大流行期间,mccd在穿着个人防护装备应对时缓解了复苏尝试的身体疲劳,表现出了特别及时的好处。在运送心脏骤停患者时,mccd被认为是有益的,但对于LUCAS-2是否特别有助于或阻碍患者的解脱,存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信