2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/198343
Title:
It's Just What we do: Emergency Nurses Describe Family Presence
Abstract:
[ENA Annual Conference 2011 - Research Presentation] “It’s just what we do”: Emergency nurses describe family presence.

Purpose: The Emergency Nurses Association has supported allowing family presence (FP) at the bedside during resuscitation of a loved one since 1993. Although embraced by other professional healthcare organizations, FP remains controversial and receives limited support from healthcare institutions. Consequently, FP research includes little data from hospitals with long term FP experience. Research is needed to describe a well-established FP practice. Study objectives: 1) to describe the benefit and harm of FP to family members (FM), using perceptions of nurses who work in an emergency department (ED) with a well-established FP protocol; 2) to define the FP experience using perceptions of nurse participants.

Design: A qualitative description study.

Setting: Conducted in a large Mid-western community hospital, trauma level 2 ED with a written FP protocol since 1992.

Subjects: Fourteen nurses completed face-to-face interviews using an investigator-developed, open-ended tool. Study cohort was mostly Caucasian (n=13), female (n=13), mean age of 39.6 years, at least 10 years nursing experience (n=9), less than 10 years experience in the ED study site (n=9). Ten nurses estimated FP at 75% of all resuscitations in their ED. Nurses described their experience with FP during resuscitation events. Family presence was defined as the physical presence of a family member during any part of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Any ED nurse who had taken part in FP was invited to participate in the study. Approval was granted by the hospital Institutional Review Board.

Methods: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and evaluated using conceptual content analysis. Initial coding used the concepts of benefit, harm, protocol and definition. Categories were then developed based on inferences made between similar groups of words in the transcribed interviews. A second coder and a code book were used in the data analysis to insure reliability and validity

Results: New findings of FP benefit described by the nurses included the categories family sees evolving events which described FM’s ability to see a loved one’s condition change over time and validation of effort, describing how FM’s appreciation that everything was done increased nurses’ confidence that they did everything they could during the resuscitation event. Other categories describing benefit were family as team member and FM saw everything done for a loved one. No categories emerged to describe actual harm to FMs during FP. Categories describing the nurses’ use of the hospital FP protocol included invitation to FM, use of chaplaincy, wait until an appropriate time for FM to enter the resuscitation room, and healthcare providers were invested in protocol.

Implications: In a hospital emergency department with long term FP experience, nurses described two previously unreported benefits of FP during resuscitation but no evidence of actual harm. Over time, nurses can embrace FP and influence the benefit of FP for FM. The acceptance of FP by ED nurses may be influenced more by behavior modeling than by written protocol. FP can be adopted with greater confidence as a standard of practice by other institutions and acute care settings.
Repository Posting Date:
21-Dec-2011
Date of Publication:
21-Dec-2011

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.titleIt's Just What we do: Emergency Nurses Describe Family Presenceen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/198343-
dc.description.abstract[ENA Annual Conference 2011 - Research Presentation] “It’s just what we do”: Emergency nurses describe family presence.<br/><br/>Purpose: The Emergency Nurses Association has supported allowing family presence (FP) at the bedside during resuscitation of a loved one since 1993. Although embraced by other professional healthcare organizations, FP remains controversial and receives limited support from healthcare institutions. Consequently, FP research includes little data from hospitals with long term FP experience. Research is needed to describe a well-established FP practice. Study objectives: 1) to describe the benefit and harm of FP to family members (FM), using perceptions of nurses who work in an emergency department (ED) with a well-established FP protocol; 2) to define the FP experience using perceptions of nurse participants.<br/><br/>Design: A qualitative description study.<br/><br/>Setting: Conducted in a large Mid-western community hospital, trauma level 2 ED with a written FP protocol since 1992. <br/><br/>Subjects: Fourteen nurses completed face-to-face interviews using an investigator-developed, open-ended tool. Study cohort was mostly Caucasian (n=13), female (n=13), mean age of 39.6 years, at least 10 years nursing experience (n=9), less than 10 years experience in the ED study site (n=9). Ten nurses estimated FP at 75% of all resuscitations in their ED. Nurses described their experience with FP during resuscitation events. Family presence was defined as the physical presence of a family member during any part of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Any ED nurse who had taken part in FP was invited to participate in the study. Approval was granted by the hospital Institutional Review Board.<br/><br/>Methods: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and evaluated using conceptual content analysis. Initial coding used the concepts of benefit, harm, protocol and definition. Categories were then developed based on inferences made between similar groups of words in the transcribed interviews. A second coder and a code book were used in the data analysis to insure reliability and validity <br/><br/>Results: New findings of FP benefit described by the nurses included the categories family sees evolving events which described FM’s ability to see a loved one’s condition change over time and validation of effort, describing how FM’s appreciation that everything was done increased nurses’ confidence that they did everything they could during the resuscitation event. Other categories describing benefit were family as team member and FM saw everything done for a loved one. No categories emerged to describe actual harm to FMs during FP. Categories describing the nurses’ use of the hospital FP protocol included invitation to FM, use of chaplaincy, wait until an appropriate time for FM to enter the resuscitation room, and healthcare providers were invested in protocol. <br/><br/>Implications: In a hospital emergency department with long term FP experience, nurses described two previously unreported benefits of FP during resuscitation but no evidence of actual harm. Over time, nurses can embrace FP and influence the benefit of FP for FM. The acceptance of FP by ED nurses may be influenced more by behavior modeling than by written protocol. FP can be adopted with greater confidence as a standard of practice by other institutions and acute care settings. <br/>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-12-21T12:46:33Z-
dc.date.issued2011-12-21T12:46:33Z-
dc.date.accessioned2011-12-21T12:46:33Z-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.