[Does reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation exist among emergency healthcare providers as first responders?].

Massimo Giammaria, Walter Frittelli, Riccardo Belli, Alessandra Chinaglia, Brunella De Michelis, Salvatore Ierna, Massimo Imazio, Roberto Vacca, Emilpaolo Manno, Rita Trinchero
{"title":"[Does reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation exist among emergency healthcare providers as first responders?].","authors":"Massimo Giammaria,&nbsp;Walter Frittelli,&nbsp;Riccardo Belli,&nbsp;Alessandra Chinaglia,&nbsp;Brunella De Michelis,&nbsp;Salvatore Ierna,&nbsp;Massimo Imazio,&nbsp;Roberto Vacca,&nbsp;Emilpaolo Manno,&nbsp;Rita Trinchero","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Only 30% of survivors from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receive basic life support (BLS) before the arrival of emergency personnel. This is also due to reluctance to perform BLS, especially mouth-to-mouth ventilation without barrier devices in victims who are unknown to the rescuer (either layperson or healthcare provider).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To evaluate the incidence of reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation without barrier devices and its consequences in a simulated BLS scenario proposed by a questionnaire to healthcare providers of critical area in a public general hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Answers were collected from 128 of 165 (77.5%) interviewed healthcare providers. Physicians were 46 of 128 (35.9%), professional nurses were 78 of 128 (60.9%) and 4 of 128 (3.2%) were other health workers devoted to patient assistance. Seventy-five of 128 (58.6 %) were reluctant to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation without barrier devices; 68 of 75 (90.6%) would perform BLS only by chest compression. Compared with non-reluctant providers, they would have been available to perform assisted ventilation by non-validated alternative methods (54.2 vs 18.8% respectively, p < 0.001). Seven of 75 (9.6%, no physician among them) would perform no BLS at all. The most significant predictors of reluctance were age < 40 years (p = 0.07) and previous attendance of BLS-BLSD courses (p = 0.07).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation without barrier devices is frequent and may reduce the number of potential BLS providers. Because of the concern about disease transmission between victim and rescuer, rescuers with a duty to respond such as healthcare providers should follow precautions including the use of barrier device also outside their workplace. When barrier devices are unavailable first responders should consider chest compression alone instead of not performing any BLS maneuvers. BLS training should help give a greater emphasis on this topics.</p>","PeriodicalId":80290,"journal":{"name":"Italian heart journal. Supplement : official journal of the Italian Federation of Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Italian heart journal. Supplement : official journal of the Italian Federation of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Only 30% of survivors from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receive basic life support (BLS) before the arrival of emergency personnel. This is also due to reluctance to perform BLS, especially mouth-to-mouth ventilation without barrier devices in victims who are unknown to the rescuer (either layperson or healthcare provider).

Methods: To evaluate the incidence of reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation without barrier devices and its consequences in a simulated BLS scenario proposed by a questionnaire to healthcare providers of critical area in a public general hospital.

Results: Answers were collected from 128 of 165 (77.5%) interviewed healthcare providers. Physicians were 46 of 128 (35.9%), professional nurses were 78 of 128 (60.9%) and 4 of 128 (3.2%) were other health workers devoted to patient assistance. Seventy-five of 128 (58.6 %) were reluctant to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation without barrier devices; 68 of 75 (90.6%) would perform BLS only by chest compression. Compared with non-reluctant providers, they would have been available to perform assisted ventilation by non-validated alternative methods (54.2 vs 18.8% respectively, p < 0.001). Seven of 75 (9.6%, no physician among them) would perform no BLS at all. The most significant predictors of reluctance were age < 40 years (p = 0.07) and previous attendance of BLS-BLSD courses (p = 0.07).

Conclusions: Reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation without barrier devices is frequent and may reduce the number of potential BLS providers. Because of the concern about disease transmission between victim and rescuer, rescuers with a duty to respond such as healthcare providers should follow precautions including the use of barrier device also outside their workplace. When barrier devices are unavailable first responders should consider chest compression alone instead of not performing any BLS maneuvers. BLS training should help give a greater emphasis on this topics.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为第一响应者的紧急医疗服务提供者是否不愿意进行口对口通气?
背景:只有30%的院外心脏骤停幸存者在急救人员到达之前获得了基本生命支持(BLS)。这也是由于不愿意执行BLS,特别是在救援人员(无论是外行人还是医疗保健提供者)不认识的受害者中不带屏障装置的口对口通气。方法:通过对某公立综合医院危重区医护人员的问卷调查,评估在模拟BLS情景下不愿进行无屏障装置口对口通气的发生率及其后果。结果:165名受访医护人员中有128人(77.5%)回答了问题。128人中有46人是医生(35.9%),128人中有78人是专业护士(60.9%),128人中有4人是致力于帮助患者的其他卫生工作者(3.2%)。128名患者中有75名(58.6%)不愿意在没有屏障装置的情况下进行口对口通气;75例患者中有68例(90.6%)仅通过胸部按压进行BLS。与非不情愿的提供者相比,他们可以通过未经验证的替代方法进行辅助通气(分别为54.2 vs 18.8%, p < 0.001)。75人中有7人(9.6%,其中没有医生)根本不做劳工统计局。不情愿的最显著预测因子是年龄< 40岁(p = 0.07)和以前参加过BLS-BLSD课程(p = 0.07)。结论:不愿意在没有屏障装置的情况下进行口对口通气是常见的,这可能会减少潜在的BLS提供者的数量。由于担心受害者和救援人员之间的疾病传播,有责任作出反应的救援人员(如医疗保健提供者)应遵循预防措施,包括在工作场所外使用屏障装置。当没有屏障装置时,第一响应者应该单独考虑胸部按压,而不是不进行任何BLS操作。劳工统计局的培训应该有助于更加强调这一主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[Italian national register of major coronary events: attack rates and fatality in different areas of the country]. [Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and cardiovascular prevention: more than twenty years of clinical success]. [Atrial fibrillation and cardioversion: role of transesophageal echocardiography]. [Economic impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. Available evidence and evaluation of the CRT-Eucomed model for analysis of cost-effectiveness]. [Impact of reperfusion strategies on in-hospital outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction in a context of interhospital network: data from the prospective VENERE registry (VENEto acute myocardial infarction REgistry].
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1