Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, chest compression only and teamwork from the perspective of medical doctors, surgeons and anesthesiologists.

Abstract

Background: New resuscitation guidelines that were proposed by the European Resuscitation Council in 2010 have introduced a new method of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by chest compressions only for untrained individuals.

Objectives: We conducted this study to evaluate differences in attitudes towards CPR among medical doctors, surgeons and anesthesiologists in Osijek University Hospital. A call for help, chest-compression-only resuscitation, mouth-to-mouth ventilation and team-work were recognized as critical points that may influence the outcome. Unfamiliarity with these methods may be indicative of a lack of education in resuscitation and may result in poor outcomes for victims.

Patients and methods: An anonymous survey was conducted on 190 medical professionals: 93 medical doctors, 70 surgeons, and 27 anesthesiologists during year 2012 (mean age 41.9 years). The questions were related to previous education in resuscitation, current resuscitation practices and attitudes towards cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Fisher exact test. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The only difference between groups was regarding the male and female ratio, with more male surgeons (45, 55, and 11, P < 0.001). All doctors considered CPR as important, but only anesthesiologists knew how often guidelines in CPR change. Approximately 45% of medical doctors, 48% of surgeons and 77% of anesthesiologists reported that they have renewed their knowledge in CPR within the last five years, whereas 34%, 25% and 22% had never renewed their knowledge in the CPR (P = 0.01 between surgeons anesthesiologists). Furthermore, chest-compression-only was recognized as a valuable CPR technique by 25.8% of medical doctors, 14.3% of surgeons and 59.3% of anesthesiologists (P < 0.001). Anesthesiologists estimated a high risk of infection transmission (62%) and were more likely to refuse mouth-to-mouth ventilation when compared to surgeons (25% vs.10%, P = 0.01). Anesthesiologists are most often called for help by their colleagues, only rarely surgeons call their departmental colleagues and nurses to help in CPR.

Conclusions: An insufficient formal education in CPR was registered for all groups, reflecting the lack of familiarity with new CPR methods. A team education, involving doctors and nurses may improve familiarity with CPR and patient outcomes.