Perspectives on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the frail population: a scoping review.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
David Armour, Despina Boyiazis, Belinda Delardes
{"title":"Perspectives on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the frail population: a scoping review.","authors":"David Armour, Despina Boyiazis, Belinda Delardes","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00220-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Frail and elderly persons approaching end of life who suffer cardiac arrest are often subject to rigorous, undignified, and inappropriate resuscitation attempts despite poor outcomes. This scoping review aims to investigate how people feel about the appropriateness of CPR in this population. This review was guided by the PRISMA-ScR methodological framework. A search strategy was developed for four online databases (MEDLINE, EMCARE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL). Two reviewers were utilised for title/abstract screening, full text review and data extraction. Full text, peer reviewed studies were eligible for inclusion which discussed perspectives in the frail and/or elderly population with a focus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The database search yielded 3693 references (MEDLINE n = 1417, EMCARE n = 1505, PSYCHINFO n = 13, CINAHL n = 758). Following removal of duplicates (n = 953), title and abstract screening was performed on 2740 papers. A total of 2634 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies were included in the scoping review and analysed for data extraction. Five themes emerged: (i) Preferences towards CPR, (ii) Preferences against CPR, (iii) Poor knowledge of CPR/Estimated survival rates, (iv) Do Not Resuscitate Orders, and (v) Decisional authority. This scoping review maps and describes the common perspectives shared by CPR stakeholders in the frail/elderly population. Findings revealed CPR decisions are often made based on incorrect knowledge, DNAR orders are frequently underused, CPR decisional authority remains vague and healthcare professionals have mixed views on the appropriateness of CPR in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-024-00220-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Frail and elderly persons approaching end of life who suffer cardiac arrest are often subject to rigorous, undignified, and inappropriate resuscitation attempts despite poor outcomes. This scoping review aims to investigate how people feel about the appropriateness of CPR in this population. This review was guided by the PRISMA-ScR methodological framework. A search strategy was developed for four online databases (MEDLINE, EMCARE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL). Two reviewers were utilised for title/abstract screening, full text review and data extraction. Full text, peer reviewed studies were eligible for inclusion which discussed perspectives in the frail and/or elderly population with a focus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The database search yielded 3693 references (MEDLINE n = 1417, EMCARE n = 1505, PSYCHINFO n = 13, CINAHL n = 758). Following removal of duplicates (n = 953), title and abstract screening was performed on 2740 papers. A total of 2634 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies were included in the scoping review and analysed for data extraction. Five themes emerged: (i) Preferences towards CPR, (ii) Preferences against CPR, (iii) Poor knowledge of CPR/Estimated survival rates, (iv) Do Not Resuscitate Orders, and (v) Decisional authority. This scoping review maps and describes the common perspectives shared by CPR stakeholders in the frail/elderly population. Findings revealed CPR decisions are often made based on incorrect knowledge, DNAR orders are frequently underused, CPR decisional authority remains vague and healthcare professionals have mixed views on the appropriateness of CPR in this population.

关于体弱人群心肺复苏的观点:范围界定综述。
生命垂危的体弱者和老年人在心脏骤停时往往要接受严格、不体面和不适当的复苏尝试,尽管效果不佳。本范围界定综述旨在调查人们对心肺复苏术在此类人群中的适宜性有何看法。本综述以 PRISMA-ScR 方法框架为指导。针对四个在线数据库(MEDLINE、EMCARE、PSYCHINFO、CINAHL)制定了检索策略。两名审稿人负责标题/摘要筛选、全文审阅和数据提取。经同行评审的全文研究符合纳入条件,这些研究讨论了体弱和/或老年人群的观点,重点关注心肺复苏(CPR)。数据库搜索共获得 3693 篇参考文献(MEDLINE n = 1417、EMCARE n = 1505、PSYCHINFO n = 13、CINAHL n = 758)。去除重复文献(n = 953)后,对 2740 篇论文进行了标题和摘要筛选。共有 2634 篇文章不符合纳入标准。25 项研究被纳入范围审查并进行了数据提取分析。共出现了五个主题:(i) 对心肺复苏术的偏好,(ii) 对心肺复苏术的偏好,(iii) 对心肺复苏术/估计存活率的不了解,(iv) 不进行复苏的命令,以及 (v) 决定权。本范围界定审查描绘并描述了体弱/老年人群中心肺复苏相关人员的共同观点。研究结果表明,心肺复苏决策往往是基于不正确的知识做出的,DNAR 命令经常使用不足,心肺复苏决策权仍然模糊不清,医护专业人员对心肺复苏在这一人群中的适宜性看法不一。
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
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