Kyung Hye Park, Jannet J Lee-Jayaram, Melissa K Kahili-Heede, Benjamin W Berg
{"title":"Simulation intervention related to family presence during resuscitation for physicians and medical students: A scoping review.","authors":"Kyung Hye Park, Jannet J Lee-Jayaram, Melissa K Kahili-Heede, Benjamin W Berg","doi":"10.15441/ceem.24.224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) is known as part of family-centered care. However, it is unknown or how physicians are educated for FPDR. We aim to review the current status of simulation related FPDR for physicians and medical students.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review of literature published from 1999 to May 5 2023 and written in English was undertaken. The articles were searched for using keyword combinations of the following words; family, resuscitation, and simulation-related words.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight articles were included in the final review. This review of FPDR simulation for physicians and medical students revealed findings in three categories; measuring CPR quality, investigating participant responses after FPDR simulation, and extracting exemplar good communication elements. First, in four studies measuring resuscitation quality, physicians participated in adult resuscitation, and resuscitation quality was reduced with overt reaction family presence. Second, in three studies investigating the response to simulation training, interprofessional teams participating in pediatric resuscitation had negative responses to FPDR simulation. Third, in one study, good communication elements during FPDR were found in infant simulation, in which interprofessional teams participated. FPDR simulation training for medical students has not been reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It highlighted a gap in FPDR simulations involving physicians and/or medical students. Physicians were more concerned with resuscitation quality than supporting families during resuscitation simulations. Medical students should be considered as the main participants for FPDR simulation. More high-evidence studies with interprofessional teams including physicians and/or medical students are needed to evaluate curriculum design and participant response changes following FPDR simulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10325,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.24.224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) is known as part of family-centered care. However, it is unknown or how physicians are educated for FPDR. We aim to review the current status of simulation related FPDR for physicians and medical students.
Methods: A scoping review of literature published from 1999 to May 5 2023 and written in English was undertaken. The articles were searched for using keyword combinations of the following words; family, resuscitation, and simulation-related words.
Results: Eight articles were included in the final review. This review of FPDR simulation for physicians and medical students revealed findings in three categories; measuring CPR quality, investigating participant responses after FPDR simulation, and extracting exemplar good communication elements. First, in four studies measuring resuscitation quality, physicians participated in adult resuscitation, and resuscitation quality was reduced with overt reaction family presence. Second, in three studies investigating the response to simulation training, interprofessional teams participating in pediatric resuscitation had negative responses to FPDR simulation. Third, in one study, good communication elements during FPDR were found in infant simulation, in which interprofessional teams participated. FPDR simulation training for medical students has not been reported.
Conclusion: It highlighted a gap in FPDR simulations involving physicians and/or medical students. Physicians were more concerned with resuscitation quality than supporting families during resuscitation simulations. Medical students should be considered as the main participants for FPDR simulation. More high-evidence studies with interprofessional teams including physicians and/or medical students are needed to evaluate curriculum design and participant response changes following FPDR simulation.