Download PDF
intensiv 2011; 19(06): 324-327
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1292777
Pflegewissenschaften
Untersuchung
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

„Sie dürfen gern bleiben!“

Stefan Köberich
1   Abt. Kardiologie/Angiologie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106 Freiburg, Deutschland
,
Hans Richter
,
Daniel Kim
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 October 2011 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Untersuchung – Die Einstellung von Pflegekräften zum Konzept der Angehörigenanwesenheit während der kardiopulmonalen Reanimation wird seit vielen Jahren kontrovers diskutiert und ist abhängig von unterschiedlichen Faktoren. Bisher ist wenig bekannt darüber, wie ein Unterricht die Einstellung zum Thema verändern kann. Erste Erfahrungswerte liefert eine Evaluation, in der die Teilnehmer vor und nach einem 1,5-stündigen Unterricht zu ihrer Einstellung befragt wurden.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Demir F. Presence of patients’ families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: physicians’ and nurses‘ opinions. J Adv Nurs 2008; 63: 409-416
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Günes UY, Zaybak A. A study of Turkish critical care nurses’ perspectives regarding family-witnessed resuscitation. J Clin Nurs 2009; 18: 2907-2915
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kianmehr N, Mofidi M, Rahmani H et al. The attitudes of team members towards family presence during hospital-based CPR: a study based in the Muslim setting of four Iranian teaching hospitals. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2010; 40: 4-8
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zakaria M, Siddique M. Presence of family members during cardio-pulmonary resuscitation after necessary amendments. J Pak Med Assoc 2008; 58: 632-635
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Axelsson AB, Fridlund B, Moons P et al. European cardiovascular nurses’ experiences of and attitudes towards having family members present in the resuscitation room. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2010; 9: 15-23
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fulbrook P, Albarran JW, Latour JM. A European survey of critical care nurses’ attitudes and experiences of having family members present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.. Int J Nurs Stud 2005; 42: 557-568
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Köberich S, Kaltwasser A, Rothaug O et al. Family witnessed resuscitation – experience and attitudes of German intensive care nurses.. Nurs Crit Care 2010; 15: 241-250
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Howlett MS, Alexander GA, Tsuchiya B et al. Health care providers’ attitudes regarding family presence during resuscitation of adults: an integrated review of the literature. Clin Nurse Spec 2010; 24: 161-174
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Baumhover N, Hughes L. Spirituality and support for family presence during invasive procedures and resuscitations in adults. Am J Crit Care 2009; 18: 357-366 ; quiz 367
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wacht O, Dopelt K, Snir Y et al. Attitudes of emergency department staff toward family presence during resuscitation. Isr Med Assoc J 2010; 12: 366-370
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Mortelmans LJ, Cas WM, Van Hellemond PL et al. Should relatives witness resuscitation in the emergency department? The point of view of the Belgian Emergency Department staff. Eur J Emerg Med 2009; 16: 87-91
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bassler PC. The impact of education on nurses’ beliefs regarding family presence in a resuscitation room. J Nurses Staff Dev 1999; 15: 126-131
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Norton CK, Dimon A, Richards RK et al. The introduction of family presence evidence-based practice into a baccalaureate nursing curriculum. Crit Care Nurs Q 2007; 30: 364-371
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Fulbrook P, Latour J, Albarran J et al. The presence of family members during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: European Federation of Critical Care Nursing Associations, European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care and European Society of Cardiology Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions joint position statement. Nurs Crit Care 2007; 12: 250-252
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar