IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i17-18p2611-2619.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health professionals’ perceptions regarding family witnessed resuscitation in adult critical care settings

Author

Listed:
  • Ibrahim Bashayreh
  • Ahmad Saifan
  • Abdul‐Monim Batiha
  • Stephen Timmons
  • Stuart Nairn

Abstract

Aims and objectives To deepen our understanding of the perceptions of health professionals regarding family witnessed resuscitation in Jordanian adult critical care settings. Background The issue of family witnessed resuscitation has developed dramatically in the last three decades. The traditional practice of excluding family members during cardiopulmonary resuscitation had been questioned. Family witnessed resuscitation has been described as good practice by many researchers and health organisations. However, family witnessed resuscitation has been perceived by some practitioners to be unhealthy and harmful to the life‐saving process. The literature showed that there are no policies or guidelines to allow or to prevent family witnessed resuscitation in Jordan. Design An exploratory qualitative design was adopted. Methods A purposive sample of 31 health professionals from several disciplines was recruited over a period of six months. Individual semi‐structured interviews were used. These interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings It was found that most healthcare professionals were against family witnessed resuscitation. They raised several concerns related to being verbally and physically attacked if they allowed family witnessed resuscitation. Almost all of the respondents expressed their fears of patients’ family members’ interfering in their work. Most of the participants in this study stated that family witnessed resuscitation is traumatic for family members. This was viewed as a barrier to allowing family witnessed resuscitation in Jordanian critical care settings. Conclusion The study provides a unique understanding of Jordanian health professionals’ perceptions regarding family witnessed resuscitation. They raised some views that contest some arguments in the broader literature. Further research with patients, family members, health professionals and policy makers is still required. Relevance to clinical practice This is the first study about family witnessed resuscitation in Jordan. Considering multi‐disciplinary healthcare professionals’ views would be helpful when starting to implement this practice in Jordanian hospitals.

Suggested Citation

  • Ibrahim Bashayreh & Ahmad Saifan & Abdul‐Monim Batiha & Stephen Timmons & Stuart Nairn, 2015. "Health professionals’ perceptions regarding family witnessed resuscitation in adult critical care settings," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(17-18), pages 2611-2619, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:17-18:p:2611-2619
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12875
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12875?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbara Hanson, 2008. "Wither Qualitative/Quantitative?: Grounds for Methodological Convergence," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 97-111, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Intima Alrimawi & Ahmad Rajeh Saifan & Raghad Abdelkader & Abdul‐Monim Batiha, 2018. "Palestinian community perceptions of do‐not‐resuscitation order for terminally Ill patients: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(13-14), pages 2719-2728, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    2. Achim Goerres & Katrin Prinzen, 2012. "Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 415-450, February.
    3. Stephen Harwood, 2023. "Complex Problems and Dealing with them on a Research Methods Course in a Business School," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 587-607, August.
    4. S A Harwood, 2011. "Mixing methodologies and paradigmatic commensurability," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 806-809, April.
    5. M. Heyvaert & B. Maes & P. Onghena, 2013. "Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 659-676, February.
    6. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Inés Fernández-Guerrero, 2011. "The classical myth of Ulysses versus Palamedes: an early metaphor for the qualitative/quantitative debate?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 525-538, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:17-18:p:2611-2619. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.