Search results for: Risheka Suthantirakumar

Authors: Michelle Hartanto, Risheka Suthantirakumar

Abstract:

Introduction Staff redeployment, increased numbers of acutely unwell patients requiring resuscitation decision-making conversations, visiting restrictions, and varying guidance regarding resuscitation for patients with COVID-19 disrupted clinicians’ management of resuscitation and escalation decision-making processes. While it was generally accepted that the COVID-19 pandemic disturbed numerous aspects of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process in the United Kingdom, a process which establishes a patient’s CPR status and treatment escalation plans, the impact of the pandemic on clinicians’ attitudes towards these resuscitation and decision-making conversations was unknown. This was the first study to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinicians’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards the ReSPECT process. Methods A cross-sectional survey of clinicians at one acute teaching hospital in the UK was conducted. A questionnaire with a defined five-point Likert scale was distributed and clinicians were asked to recall their pre-pandemic views on ReSPECT and report their current views at the time of survey distribution (May 2020, end of the first COVID-19 wave in the UK). Responses were received from 171 clinicians, and self-reported views before and during the pandemic were compared. Results Clinicians reported they found managing ReSPECT conversations more challenging during the pandemic, especially when conducted over the telephone with relatives, and they experienced an increase in negative emotions before, during, and after conducting ReSPECT conversations. Our findings identified that due to the pandemic there was now a need for clinicians to receive training and support in conducting resuscitation and escalation decision-making conversations over the telephone with relatives and managing these processes.

Keywords: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, COVID-19 pandemic, DNACPR discussion, education, recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment, resuscitation order

Procedia PDF Downloads 88

Authors: Risheka Suthantirakumar, Eilish Pearson, Jacqueline Woodman

Abstract:

Background: Previous research has found a variety of rates and reasons for choosing medically unindicated elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS). Understanding the frequency and reasoning of ERCS, especially when unwarranted, could help healthcare professionals better tailor their advice and service. Therefore, our study conducted meta-analyses and qualitative analyses to identify the reasons and rates worldwide for choosing this procedure over the trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), also referred to in published literature as vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published literature available on PubMed, EMBASE, and science.gov and conducted a blinded peer review process to assess eligibility. Search terms were created in collaboration with experts in the field. An inclusion and exclusion criteria were established prior to reviewing the articles. Included studies were limited to those published in English due to author constraints, although no international boundaries were used in the search. No time limit for the search was used in order to portray changes over time. Results: Our qualitative analyses found five consistent themes across international studies, which were socioeconomic and cultural differences, previous cesarean experience, perceptions of risk with vaginal birth, patients’ perceptions of future benefits, and medical advice and information. Our meta-analyses found variable rates of ERCS across international borders and within national populations. The average rate across all studies was 44% (CI 95% 36-51). Discussion: The studies included in our qualitative analysis demonstrated similar repetitive themes, which give validity to the findings across the studies included. We consider the rate variation across and within national populations to be partially a result of differing inclusion and eligibility assessment between different studies and argue that a proforma be utilized for future research to be comparable.

Keywords: elective cesarean section, VBAC, TOLAC, maternal choice

Procedia PDF Downloads 98