Witnessed resuscitation of adult and paediatric hospital patients: An umbrella review of the evidence

Objective: To examine the research evidence about whether families were allowed to witness cardiopulmonary resuscitation on hospitalised adult and paediatric patients; and the views of patients, families and health professionals, about witnessed cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Design: An umbrella review methodology of systematic reviews with sufficient methodological quality.

Review methods: Papers published in Spanish and English between, 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018 were considered. The following databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo, Embase, the Central Supplier Database and the Joanna Briggs Institute, Evidence-based Practice Database. Two independent reviewers assessed the papers for methodological quality employing instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal, extraction and synthesis were carried out, employing the established methods for umbrella reviews and the protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO number CRD42019145610).

Results: The search identified 12 systematic reviews with moderate-to-high quality, which covered 110 original papers. Habitually, health professionals expressed controversial views and showed some reluctance to let families be present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In contrast, family members felt strongly that they should be present and patients agreed. Key factors that facilitated witnessed cardiopulmonary were a formal institutional policy, educating health professionals, and designating a health professional to support the family. Educational and cultural backgrounds influenced healthcare professionals' experiences and their attitudes towards witnessed cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In general, Anglo-Saxon countries showed greater support for this practice. These included the United States, which was the country that dominated the literature on this subject.

Conclusions: The best available evidence supports allowing the family to be present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. It is necessary to include this practice in educational curricula and to train emergency personnel in its implementation. Culturally sensitive policies need to be designed, and the public to be aware of their right to be present.