COVID-19对急诊医疗服务主导的院外心脏骤停复苏的影响:一项定性研究。

Ali Coppola, Kim Kirby, Sarah Black, Ria Osborne
{"title":"COVID-19对急诊医疗服务主导的院外心脏骤停复苏的影响:一项定性研究。","authors":"Ali Coppola,&nbsp;Kim Kirby,&nbsp;Sarah Black,&nbsp;Ria Osborne","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2022.09.7.2.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Following the emergence of COVID-19, there have been local and national changes in the way emergency medical service (EMS) staff respond to and treat patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The views of EMS staff on the impact of COVID-19 and management of OHCA have not previously been explored. This study aimed to explore the views of staff, with a specific focus on communication during resuscitation, resuscitation procedures and the perception of risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative phenomenological enquiry was conducted. A purposive sample of n = 20 participants of various clinical grades was selected from NHS EMS providers in the United Kingdom. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, transcribed verbatim and inductive thematic analysis was applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three main themes emerged which varied according to clinical grade, location and guidelines.Decision making: Staff generally felt supported to make best-interest termination of resuscitation decisions. Staff made informed decisions to compromise on recommended levels of personal protective equipment (PPE), since it felt impractical in the pre-hospital context, to improve communication or to reduce delays to care.Service pressures: Availability of operational staff and in-hospital capacity were reduced. Staff felt pressure and disconnect from the continuous updates to clinical guidelines which resulted in organisational change fatigue.Moral injury: The emotional impacts of prolonged and frequent exposure to failed resuscitation attempts and patient death caused many staff to take time away from work to recover.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This qualitative study is the first known to explore staff views on the impacts of COVID-19 on OHCA resuscitation, which found positive outcomes but also negative impacts important to inform EMS systems. Staff felt that COVID-19 created delays to the delivery of resuscitation, which were multi-faceted. Staff developed new ways of working to overcome the barriers of impractical PPE. There was little impact on resuscitation procedures. Moving forwards, EMS should consider how to limit organisational change and better support the ongoing emotional impacts on staff.</p>","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":"7 2","pages":"8-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9662152/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of COVID-19 on emergency medical service-led out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation: a qualitative study.\",\"authors\":\"Ali Coppola,&nbsp;Kim Kirby,&nbsp;Sarah Black,&nbsp;Ria Osborne\",\"doi\":\"10.29045/14784726.2022.09.7.2.8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Following the emergence of COVID-19, there have been local and national changes in the way emergency medical service (EMS) staff respond to and treat patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The views of EMS staff on the impact of COVID-19 and management of OHCA have not previously been explored. This study aimed to explore the views of staff, with a specific focus on communication during resuscitation, resuscitation procedures and the perception of risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative phenomenological enquiry was conducted. A purposive sample of n = 20 participants of various clinical grades was selected from NHS EMS providers in the United Kingdom. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, transcribed verbatim and inductive thematic analysis was applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three main themes emerged which varied according to clinical grade, location and guidelines.Decision making: Staff generally felt supported to make best-interest termination of resuscitation decisions. Staff made informed decisions to compromise on recommended levels of personal protective equipment (PPE), since it felt impractical in the pre-hospital context, to improve communication or to reduce delays to care.Service pressures: Availability of operational staff and in-hospital capacity were reduced. Staff felt pressure and disconnect from the continuous updates to clinical guidelines which resulted in organisational change fatigue.Moral injury: The emotional impacts of prolonged and frequent exposure to failed resuscitation attempts and patient death caused many staff to take time away from work to recover.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This qualitative study is the first known to explore staff views on the impacts of COVID-19 on OHCA resuscitation, which found positive outcomes but also negative impacts important to inform EMS systems. Staff felt that COVID-19 created delays to the delivery of resuscitation, which were multi-faceted. Staff developed new ways of working to overcome the barriers of impractical PPE. There was little impact on resuscitation procedures. Moving forwards, EMS should consider how to limit organisational change and better support the ongoing emotional impacts on staff.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72470,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British paramedic journal\",\"volume\":\"7 2\",\"pages\":\"8-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9662152/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British paramedic journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2022.09.7.2.8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2022.09.7.2.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)出现后,地方和全国紧急医疗服务(EMS)人员应对和治疗院外心脏骤停(OHCA)患者的方式发生了变化。EMS工作人员对COVID-19的影响和OHCA管理的看法以前没有被探讨过。本研究旨在探讨工作人员的观点,特别关注复苏过程中的沟通、复苏程序和风险感知。方法:进行定性现象学调查。有目的的样本n = 20不同临床等级的参与者被选择从NHS EMS提供者在英国。数据收集采用半结构化访谈,逐字抄录和归纳专题分析。结果:根据临床分级、位置和指南不同,出现了三个主要主题。决策:工作人员普遍感到支持作出最有利的终止复苏的决定。工作人员在知情的情况下作出决定,在建议的个人防护装备(PPE)水平上做出妥协,因为这在院前环境中感觉不切实际,从而改善沟通或减少护理延误。服务压力:可提供的业务工作人员和住院能力减少。员工感到压力,与不断更新的临床指南脱节,导致组织变革疲劳。精神伤害:长期和频繁地接触到抢救失败和病人死亡的情绪影响,导致许多工作人员请假休养。结论:这项定性研究首次探讨了员工对COVID-19对OHCA复苏的影响的看法,该研究发现了积极的结果,但也发现了对EMS系统重要的负面影响。工作人员认为,COVID-19造成了复苏工作的延误,这是多方面的。工作人员开发了新的工作方法,以克服不切实际的个人防护装备的障碍。对复苏程序影响不大。展望未来,环境管理体系应考虑如何限制组织变革,并更好地支持对员工的持续情感影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The impact of COVID-19 on emergency medical service-led out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation: a qualitative study.

The impact of COVID-19 on emergency medical service-led out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation: a qualitative study.

Background: Following the emergence of COVID-19, there have been local and national changes in the way emergency medical service (EMS) staff respond to and treat patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The views of EMS staff on the impact of COVID-19 and management of OHCA have not previously been explored. This study aimed to explore the views of staff, with a specific focus on communication during resuscitation, resuscitation procedures and the perception of risk.

Methods: A qualitative phenomenological enquiry was conducted. A purposive sample of n = 20 participants of various clinical grades was selected from NHS EMS providers in the United Kingdom. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, transcribed verbatim and inductive thematic analysis was applied.

Results: Three main themes emerged which varied according to clinical grade, location and guidelines.Decision making: Staff generally felt supported to make best-interest termination of resuscitation decisions. Staff made informed decisions to compromise on recommended levels of personal protective equipment (PPE), since it felt impractical in the pre-hospital context, to improve communication or to reduce delays to care.Service pressures: Availability of operational staff and in-hospital capacity were reduced. Staff felt pressure and disconnect from the continuous updates to clinical guidelines which resulted in organisational change fatigue.Moral injury: The emotional impacts of prolonged and frequent exposure to failed resuscitation attempts and patient death caused many staff to take time away from work to recover.

Conclusion: This qualitative study is the first known to explore staff views on the impacts of COVID-19 on OHCA resuscitation, which found positive outcomes but also negative impacts important to inform EMS systems. Staff felt that COVID-19 created delays to the delivery of resuscitation, which were multi-faceted. Staff developed new ways of working to overcome the barriers of impractical PPE. There was little impact on resuscitation procedures. Moving forwards, EMS should consider how to limit organisational change and better support the ongoing emotional impacts on staff.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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