AJCC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Critical Care. 2008;17: 101-111
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Respond to This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in AJCC
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Take the CE Test
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Twibell, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Neal, A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Twibell, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Neal, A.

CE Article

Nurses’ Perceptions of Their Self-confidence and the Benefits and Risks of Family Presence During Resuscitation

By Renee Samples Twibell, RN, DNS, CNE, Debra Siela, RN, PhD, CCNS, APRN, BC, CCRN, RRT, Cheryl Riwitis, RN, BSN, CEN, Joe Wheatley, RN, BSN, CRRN, Tina Riegle, RN, BSN, CMSRN, Denise Bousman, RN, BSN, CCRN, Sandra Cable, RN, BSN, Pam Caudill, RN, BSN, Sherry Harrigan, RN, BS, CCRN, CVN-I, Rick Hollars, RN, MSN, CMSRN, ONC, Doreen Johnson, RN, MS, FACHE, CNAA-BC and Alexis Neal, RN, MA. Authors are affiliated with Ball Memorial Hospital, Muncie, Indiana; Ball State University, School of Nursing, Muncie, Indiana; or Air-Evac EMS, West Plains, Missouri.

Corresponding author: Renee Samples Twibell, RN, DNS, CNE, Associate Professor, School of Nursing, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47304 (e-mail: rtwibell{at}bsu.edu).


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Background
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion and Implications
 Conclusions
 References
 
Background Debate continues among nurses about the advantages and disadvantages of family presence during resuscitation. Knowledge development about such family presence is constrained by the lack of reliable and valid instruments to measure key variables.

Objectives To test 2 instruments used to measure nurses’ perceptions of family presence during resuscitation, to explore demographic variables and perceptions of nurses’ self-confidence and the risks and benefits related to such family presence in a broad sample of nurses from multiple hospital units, and to examine differences in perceptions of nurses who have and who have not invited family presence.

Methods Nurses (n = 375) completed the Family Presence Risk-Benefit Scale and the Family Presence Self-confidence Scale.

Results Nurses’ perceptions of benefits, risks, and self-confidence were significantly and strongly interrelated. Nurses who invited family presence during resuscitation were significantly more self-confident in managing it and perceived more benefits and fewer risks (P < .001). Perceptions of more benefits and fewer risks were related to membership in professional organizations, professional certification, and working in an emergency department (P < .001). Data supported initial reliability and construct validity for the 2 scales.

Conclusions Nurses’ perceptions of the risks and benefits of family presence during resuscitation vary widely and are associated with how often the nurses invite family presence. After further testing, the 2 new scales may be suitable for measuring interventional outcomes, serve as self-assessment tools, and add to conceptual knowledge about family presence.

Notice to CE enrollees:
A closed-book, multiple-choice examination following this article tests your understanding of the following objectives:
  1. Describe nurses’ perceptions of self-confidence with families being present during resuscitation.
  2. Recognize the association between perceptions of nurses regarding family presence during resuscitation and decisions of nurses to invite family presence.
  3. Understand the use of both the Family Presence Risk-Benefit Scale and the Family Presence Self-confidence Scale.
To read this article and take the CE test online, visit www.ajcconline.org and click "CE Articles in This Issue." No CE test fee for AACN members.

Debate persists in critical care units around the world about the risks and benefits of having family members of a patient present during resuscitation of the patient. Family members of patients overwhelmingly report a desire to be with their loved ones during end-of-life emergency measures.1–8 At the urging of professional organizations, including the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses,9 the Emergency Nurses Association,10 and the American Heart Association,11 an increasing number of hospitals now allow family members of patients to be present during resuscitation. Because few acute care facilities have policies about family presence during resuscitation,12,13 healthcare professionals often make case-by-case decisions about whether family members are given the option to be present. Therefore, clarifying the perceptions of nurses who are often "gatekeepers to the bedside" during resuscitation is vital.14


   Background
Top
 Abstract
 Background
Methods
 Results
 Discussion and Implications
 Conclusions
 References
 
Research suggests that various healthcare professionals have different opinions about family presence. Physicians, particularly interns and residents, are overall less positive than are other healthcare professionals about family presence during resuscitation.1,2,15–20 Some nurses support family presence during resuscitation,2,15,17,20,21,22 whereas other nurses have more negative views.2,4,5,15,17,18,20,23


Families believe it is their right to be present during resuscitation.

 

Healthcare professionals report 3 primary reasons for their reluctance to invite patients’ families to be present: the unpleasantness of what the families will see,16,17,19,22–26 fear that the resuscitation team will not function well with patients’ families in the room,16,19,20,22,24,25 and anxiety that family members will become disruptive.17,18,20,22,24,25,27 Less frequently mentioned concerns include patient confidentiality,24 possible increase in litigation if patients’ families are present,17,28 and more aggressive and prolonged treatment if patients’ families are present.2

However, research has not indicated that patients’ families are disruptive, anxious about what they will see, or more likely to sue.1,6,28–30 In fact, in one study,31 family members reported that they feared being disruptive and wanted to stay out of the way. Little research documents long-term detrimental effects on families.32 Likewise, research has not shown that the resuscitation team performs less adequately or that confidentiality is breached when families are present.28

According to nurses, common advantages of family presence during the resuscitation of adult loved ones include the following: families grasp the seriousness of the patient’s condition, families see that everything was done for their loved one, and families move more positively through the grieving process.2,19,20,26,27,33–36 In addition, families report that their presence helps the patient and enables the families to receive information quickly.2,3,32–34,36,37 Consensus is growing that parental presence during resuscitation of children has many advantages.30 Recently, 18 healthcare organizations united in a national forum to support parental presence during resuscitations of children.38

Three distinct gaps exist in what is known about the perceptions and decisions of nurses regarding family presence during resuscitation of adults. The first gap is due to the way perceptions were measured in earlier research. Most of what is known about nurses’ perceptions of family presence during resuscitation has been assessed by using opinion surveys or interviews.6,12,14,16–19,23–27,32,34,36,37,39,40 Both methods of data collection are difficult to replicate. Findings across studies cannot be compared when the survey questions used in the studies differ, making it difficult to build a scientific body of knowledge of family presence. More rigor in the measurement of concepts related to family presence is needed.41,42

Recently, several instruments to measure health-care professionals’ perceptions of and opinions about family presence have been developed and tested for psychometric properties.20,22,43 Early evidence of reliability and content validity have been reported.20,22,43 In 2 studies,20,22 researchers measured attitudes, values, and beliefs of healthcare providers related to family presence during resuscitation and invasive procedures. In both studies, nurses and physicians were surveyed. In addition, Duran et al20 surveyed respiratory therapists, patients’ families, and patients. In both studies,20,22 the sample consisted of fewer than 100 nurses, all from critical care or emergency departments. Statistical analysis of subscales of the instruments was not part of either study.

The second gap is due to the lack of a conceptual framework. To date, research related to family presence during resuscitation has been atheoretical. More specifically, nurses have not yet identified the primary determinants of decision making about family presence and the pattern of relationships among key factors. Several concepts related to inviting or not inviting patients’ families to be present during resuscitation are consistent in the literature, including perceived risks and benefits of the practice.5,7,12,15,16,17,26,29,34,37,44,45 Furthermore, according to Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovation,46 new ideas are adopted in part on the basis of estimates of relative risks and benefits. In addition, according to Bandura,47 the likelihood that a person will behave in a new way depends in part on the person’s perception of his or her ability to perform the relevant behavior. In other words, people tend to perform behaviors that they feel confident in doing.48

Research is needed to test the relationship between risks, benefits, and self-confidence in managing family presence during resuscitation. If nurses have high self-confidence about their ability to perform adequately during resuscitation when a patient’s family is present, will they be more likely to invite families to the bedside? To what extent do perceptions of risks, benefits, and self-confidence influence nurses’ decision making about the innovative practice of family presence?

The third gap is due to the types of samples included in earlier research. In most studies of nurses’ perceptions of family presence, the sample consisted of nurses employed in emergency departments. Critical care nurses were included in some studies,17,20 but none of the studies included nurses who worked in non–critical care units. The samples in prior research consisted of fewer than 100 nurses,20,22 and sometimes the response rates were low.28 In addition, the relationships between respondents’ personal and professional characteristics, including age and years of experience, and their perceptions of family presence have not been consistently described.28

The purposes of the study reported here were to address the 3 gaps and, specifically, to test instruments used to measure nurses’ perceptions of family presence; to explore demographic variables and nurses’ perceptions of self-confidence, risks, and benefits related to family presence in a broad sample of nurses from multiple hospital units; and to examine differences in perceptions of nurses who have and who have not invited patients’ families to be present during resuscitation. The research questions were as follows:


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Methods
Results
 Discussion and Implications
 Conclusions
 References
 
Sample, Setting, and Procedure
Participants were registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) employed at Ball Memorial Hospital, a regional medical center associated with Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. The hospital did not have a policy about family presence during resuscitation. Some units of the hospital routinely used family presence, whereas others did not. To be included in the study, participants had to be 18 years or older, be able to read English, and hold a nursing license in Indiana.


Two-thirds of nurses had never invited family presence during resuscitation.

 

The study was approved by the appropriate institutional review boards. Nurses completed the 2 instruments and returned them by mail. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Data were confidential.

Instruments
Perceptual variables in the study were perceived risks, perceived benefits, and self-confidence related to family presence during resuscitation. On the basis of the theories of Rogers46 and Bandura,47 qualitative data from content experts, and the findings of earlier research,5,7,12,15,16,17,26,29,34,37,44,45 we developed 2 instruments to measure the perceptual variables. The Family Presence Risk-Benefit Scale (FPR-BS) was used to measure nurses’ perceptions of the risks and benefits of family presence to the family, patient, and resuscitation team. Two items addressed the extent to which being present was a right of families and patients. The Family Presence Self-confidence Scale (FPS-CS) was used to measure nurses’ self-confidence related to managing resuscitation with patients’ families present. Items for both scales were developed on the basis of the literature and interviews with expert nurses from a variety of clinical areas. Items on both scales had 5-point Likert response options, from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Clinical experts in family presence, academicians, and statistical experts in design and testing provided content review of the items. The initial items were pilot tested with 20 nurses from multiple nursing units in an acute care setting. After modifications, 26 of the 30 original items were included in the FPR-BS. The possible range of scores was 26 to 130. Of the original 19 items, 17 were included in the FPS-CS; the possible range of scores was 17 to 85.

Demographic variables were measured by using single items that addressed age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, role as an RN or an LPN, current professional certifications, and years of experience as a nurse. A single item asked, "How many times have you invited a family member to be present during a resuscitation attempt at this hospital?" Response options were never, fewer than 5 times, and 5 times or more.

Statistical Analysis
For analysis of the psychometric properties of the 2 instruments, maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation was computed to determine the construct validity of the scales. Item-to-total correlations and Cronbach {alpha} reliability were used to assess whether items were consistently measuring the same underlying ideas. Relationships among study variables were examined by computing Pearson r correlations among scores for perceived benefits, perceived risks, and self-confidence.

Relationships among demographic variables were analyzed descriptively. Because of the small number of men and nonwhite participants, data on sex and ethnicity of the participants were eliminated from the analysis. Pearson r correlations, t tests, and analysis of variance were used to determine relationships between perceptual variables and demographic variables. Analysis of variance was used to examine differences in scores on the FPR-BS and the FPS-CS on the basis of how often nurses had invited patients’ family members to be present during resuscitation.

Significance was set at P < .05. A sample size of at least 250 was targeted. SPSS for Windows, version 14.0.2 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois), was used for all analyses. Negatively worded items were reverse scored. Residual analyses revealed acceptable linear trends.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Methods
 Results
Discussion and Implications
 Conclusions
 References
 
Characteristics of the Sample
A total of 375 nurses participated in the study, for a response rate of 64%. More than 95% were women, more than 90% were white, and more than 75% had at least 6 years of nursing experience (Table 1Go). One half of the sample had a baccalaureate degree in nursing. A total of 44% (n = 165) worked on inpatient, non–critical care units, 36% (n = 136) worked in critical care units, 6% (n = 22) worked in the emergency department, and 7% (n=26) worked in an outpatient setting. Most respondents provided care for adults (80%). Nurses from a pediatric unit (10%) also cared for some adult surgical patients. Nurses from a neonatal ICU (10%) cared solely for infants.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Sample characteristics (n = 375)a

 
About two-thirds of the participants (n=254) had never invited the family of a patient to be present during resuscitation, more than 20% (n=83) had invited family presence at least once but fewer than 5 times, and 7.5% (n = 28) had invited it 5 times or more.

Scores on Study Variables
Mean total scores were 3.15 (range, 1.09–4.91) on the FPR-BS and 3.65 (range, 1.0–5.0) on the FPS-CS. The responses of the participants varied greatly. Almost every item on the 2 instruments elicited responses that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Because of the large sample size and the variability in responses on such a controversial topic, normal distributions of scores were not anticipated. However, Shapiro-Wilks tests of normality indicated that scores on the FPS-CS and the FPR-BS had nearly normal distributions. Furthermore, the skewness and kurtosis measures were small, from 0.15 to 0.87, indicating that departures from normality were not marked. Visual inspection of graphs of scores likewise revealed that the distributions were nearly normal. Because strict normality was not a strong assumption for the statistics proposed in the study, parametric statistics were computed.49

Instrument Testing
Factor analysis of the FPR-BS revealed a single interpretable factor. Four items were deleted because of low item-total correlations and inconsistent loading on the single factor. The scale was bipolar: high scores signified perceptions of more benefits and fewer risks; low scores, perceptions of more risks and fewer benefits.

The single factor of the FPR-BS explained 53% of the variance in nurses’ perceptions of risks and benefits of family presence. Factor loadings ranged from –0.498 to 0.890 (Table 2Go). The Cronbach {alpha} reliability of the 22-item scale was .96.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Factor analysisa: items on Family Presence Risk-Benefit Scale

 
All 17 items on the FPS-CS correlated with the total score and were retained in the analysis. A single factor explained 52% of the variance in nurses’ self-confidence to manage family presence. Factor loadings ranged from 0.553 to 0.825 (Table 3Go). The Cronbach {alpha} reliability of the scale was .95.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Factor analysisa: items on Family Presence Self-confidence Scale

 
Relationships Among Perceptions
The Pearson r correlation between nurses’ perceptions of risks and benefits and self-confidence related to family presence was significant (r = 0.56, P < .001). Nurses who perceived more benefits and fewer risks also perceived more self-confidence in their ability to manage family presence.

Slightly more than half of the sample agreed or strongly agreed that family presence was a "right" of both patients and families. These perceptions were significantly related to perceptions of fewer risks and more benefits (r = 0.72, P = .008) and to high scores on the FPS-CS (r = 0.40, P = .04).

Relationships Between Demographic Variables, Risks-Benefits, and Self-confidence
Scores on the FPR-BS differed significantly between nurses who did and did not belong to a professional nursing organization (t = 5.3, P < .001) and between nurses who were and were not certified in a clinical specialty (t = 3.9, P < .001). Certified nurses and members of professional organizations perceived more benefits and fewer risks than did nonmembers and noncertified nurses.

Likewise, scores on the FPS-CS differed significantly between nurses who did and did not belong to a professional nursing organization (t =5.1, P<.001) and between nurses who were and were not certified in a clinical specialty (t = 3.8, P < .001). Certified nurses and members of professional organizations perceived greater self-confidence than did noncertified nurses and nonmembers.

Perceptions related to family presence did not differ between RNs with an associate degree, a baccalaureate degree, or an advanced nursing degree. Compared with all RNs, LPNs perceived fewer benefits and more risks (F =14.3, P <.001). LPNs reported less self-confidence than did RNs with a baccalaureate degree (F =2.76, P =.04), but the self-confidence of LPNs did not differ significantly from that of RNs with an associate degree or an advanced practice degree.

Number of years of experience in nursing was not significantly related to nurses’ perceptions of risks, benefits, or self-confidence. Nurses’ age was not significantly related to their perceptions of family presence.

Scores on the 2 instruments varied across units. The perceptions of nurses who worked in critical care settings did not differ from those of nurses who worked in non–critical care inpatient units. Although only a few participants in the sample worked in the emergency department, their perceptions varied significantly from those of the other participants. Emergency nurses perceived significantly fewer risks and more benefits (F = 7.56, P < .001) and greater self-confidence (F = 6.90, P < .001) than did nurses who worked in all other units. Nurses who worked in outpatient ambulatory settings, also a small part of the sample, reported significantly more risks and fewer benefits than did nurses from other units (F = 6.9, P < .001).

Who Invites Family Presence?
Mean scores on the FPR-BS differed significantly (F = 32.6, P < .001) between nurses who had never invited family presence (n = 254; mean score = 2.99), nurses who had invited family presence fewer than 5 times (n = 83; mean score = 3.38), and nurses who had invited family presence 5 times or more (n = 28; mean score = 4.00). The more times nurses invited family presence, the more benefits they perceived (see FigureGo).


Figure 1
View larger version (50K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure Mean scores on Family Presence Risk-Benefit Scale and Family Presence Self-confidence Scale for nurses who did and did not invite family presence.

 
Scores on the FPS-CS also varied significantly (F = 36.4, P < .001) between nurses who had never invited family presence (mean score = 3.47), nurses who had invited family presence fewer than 5 times (mean score = 3.93), and nurses who had invited family presence 5 times or more (mean score=4.43). The more times nurses invited family presence, the greater was their self-confidence (see FigureGo).


   Discussion and Implications
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion and Implications
Conclusions
 References
 
The dramatically divergent responses of participants, from strongly agree to strongly disagree on most items, reflect the continuing controversial nature of family presence during resuscitation. Despite families’ clear desire to be present and the support of family presence by professional organizations and consensus groups, nurses still do not agree on the risks and benefits involved. The total mean score of 3.15 on the FPR-BS was slightly positive, indicating that nurses still see both benefits and risks in family presence. This score was higher than the 2.79 mean score, which indicated positive attitudes toward family presence during resuscitation and procedures, in the study by Duran et al.20 Mean scores on scales in the study by Mian et al22 also were in the 2.7 range. However, a clear and insightful comparison of scores is not possible, because the sample in our study consisted solely of nurses, the focus was resuscitation, and the items differed from those on earlier tools.


More than half of the nurses believed that family presence during resuscitation was a "right" both of patients and their families.

 

Despite limited experience in inviting family presence, the total sample of nurses in our study scored themselves moderately high on self-confidence in caring for patients and families during family presence. No other investigators have used a multi-item tool to assess self-confidence, so no data from other samples are available for comparison. The finding that nurses with greater self-confidence had invited family presence more often is consistent with results from 2 earlier studies,18,43 in which health-care providers with increased confidence and competence were more likely to adopt family presence than were providers with less confidence and competence. Our findings do not indicate whether increased confidence in managing family presence precedes more frequent invitations for family presence or whether more frequent invitations for family presence increase nurses’ confidence in managing such presence. Further exploration of the relationship between nurses’ confidence and perceptions related to family presence is needed.

Our results do not indicate why nurses make certain decisions about family presence, but the findings do suggest that the perceptions of nurses who have invited family presence differ from those of nurses who have not invited such presence. Nurses who invited family presence perceived more benefits, fewer risks, and more self-confidence than nurses who did not invite family presence. These results support other research findings22,27,33 suggesting that once nurses participate in family presence, they perceive more benefits than risks in the practice.

Our data depict a profile of nurses who typically invite family presence. Nurses most likely to invite family presence were RNs who were certified, were members of a professional organization, and were working in the emergency department. Possibly, the respondents were members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses or the Emergency Nurses Association, organizations that advocate for family presence. In 2 other studies,17,23 nurses certified by the Emergency Nurses Association were more likely than other nurses to invite family presence. Similar to our findings, in the study by Bassler,24 nurses who worked in the emergency department were more likely than critical care nurses to invite family presence. Nurses in emergency departments may tend to integrate patients’ family members into patients’ experiences more than nurses do on inpatient units, where even open visitation for patients’ families may still be controversial.50


Members of professional organizations perceived greater benefit and less risk than did non-members.

 

Nurses who work in critical care units did not differ in their perceptions of risks, benefits, or self-confidence from nurses who worked in non–critical care inpatient units. This finding was similar to that of Fulbrook et al42 that ICU and non-ICU nurses in a European sample did not differ in attitudes toward family presence. Nurses who worked in an outpatient setting may have perceived more risks and fewer benefits because their experiences with resuscitation are rare and usually unexpected.

Our results did not clarify the relationships between nurses’ age, years of experience, and perceptions related to family presence. We found no significant relationships, in contrast to the findings of other studies,18,23 which suggested that nurses with more nursing experience were more favorable toward family presence. Fulbrook et al42 found no differences in attitudes related to years of nursing experience.

Our data reflect disparity about whether or not patients’ families have a "right" to be present during resuscitation. The key question is, Who owns the family presence decision? Families have commonly reported that family presence is a right.2,3,24,34 The nurses in our study were evenly divided on whether or not families had a right to be present. Similar results from other studies2,12,25,40 indicate that healthcare professionals do not yet fully embrace family presence as a right to be exercised by patients’ families, independent of the judgment of healthcare professions.

Strategies to increase adoption of family presence can focus on skill building for both inviting and managing family presence. Once a nurse has experienced family presence during resuscitation, debriefing can provide further learning opportunities and a chance to reflect and develop confidence. Active-learning strategies could include role playing, mentoring, supervised practice, coaching, case-study simulations, and self-exploration of the evidence on family presence. Membership in professional organizations can be encouraged.

One purpose of our study was to test instruments to measure nurses’ perceptions related to family presence. The instruments in prior research were used to measure global concepts of attitude, beliefs, and values20,22 rather than specific concepts such as risks, benefits, and self-confidence, although some overlap occurred in the content of items. Our use of factor analysis of the instruments to examine construct validity is the first statistical evaluation of the factor structure of measures of concepts of family presence. No discrete subscales were identified. The data provided initial support for the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the 2 scales.

Further development of the FPR-BS and FPS-CS could address validity, reliability, and the scope of the items on the scales. Validity of the scales can be enhanced by testing the factor structure of the 22-item FPR-BS in other samples with ethnic and geographic diversity. The factor structure of the FPS-CS also requires confirmation in other samples. Concurrent validity of the FPR-BS could be tested by using selected subscales from similar measures, such as the family presence attitude scale in the study by Duran et al.20 Concurrent validity of the FPS-CS could be tested by using a general measure of self-efficacy, such as the General Self-efficacy Scale.51 However, measures of self-efficacy and self-confidence are more valid and precise when associated with a specific behavior rather than measured as a global construct.52

Internal consistency reliability of the scales can be tested in other samples. The high Cronbach {alpha} values for our scales suggests that some items are redundant and could be removed. Test-retest reliability may be informative as a measure of stability of scores over time, although perceptions of family presence may change in response to day-by-day experiences.

The scope of the items on the FPR-BS could be expanded to explain more of the variance in the scores. In our study, slightly less than half of the variance in scores on both instruments was unexplained. Unexplained variance could arise from 2 sources. One source might be inconsistent responses to items by individual respondents, because of the emotional and controversial nature of the debate on family presence. If nurses are not sure about risks, benefits, and self-confidence, responses to items may not be consistent, and more unexplained variance will result. Fulbrook et al42 noted that respondents (n = 124) changed their views on issues related to family presence from the beginning to the end of a survey. A second source of unexplained variance might be the existence of additional influences on nurses’ perceptions of risks, benefits, and self-confidence that were untapped by these tools.

Qualitative research on family presence may reveal more specific concepts related to nurses’ decisions about the practice that can be operationalized on further revisions of the instruments. For example, it might be useful to measure additional, specific benefits of family presence on the FPR-BS, such as "family can see that everything was done," "family can have closure," "family can touch the patient," "patient can be comforted by the family," "patients’ confidentiality may be compromised," and "patients’ personhood may be preserved." The development of a conceptual framework for family presence will offer further direction for expanding the items of the scales.

After more development, these 2 scales may contribute to what is known about family presence in several ways. First, the scales may offer a standardized, psychometrically sound alternative to researcher-developed, single-study opinion surveys and thus may allow results to be compared across studies and samples. Clarification of the conceptual underpinnings of family presence may be enhanced as additional, psychometrically sound tools are developed.

Second, the scales could be used to quickly and easily identify nurses who favor family presence and feel confident in managing it. The Synergy Model48 recommends matching patients’ needs with nurses’ competencies. To optimize patient and family outcomes during resuscitation, nurses who are confident of their abilities in managing family presence can be assigned to code teams, rapid response teams, and family care during resuscitations. Likewise, nurses who favor family presence and are confident of their ability to manage the practice may act as role models for novice nurses, mentor experienced nurses, teach family presence at the bedside, serve effectively on code teams, and lead change in units that do not practice family presence.

Third, the 2 scales could be used as pretests to detect learning needs for an educational intervention on family presence and as posttests to measure the effectiveness of interventions, a study design piloted by Mian et al.22

Fourth, the scales also can be used as quick self-assessments for nurses who want to understand more clearly why they feel the way they do about family presence. For example, nurses can ask themselves, Am I nonsupportive of family presence because I don‘t feel confident about my ability to manage the situation?

Further exploration of nurses’ self-confidence related to family presence may expand to include the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy includes not only how confident nurses feel about performing an activity but also the extent to which nurses believe that the activity will bring about desirable results.47 Once the desirable results of family presence are verified through research, the FPS-CS could be adapted to measure self-efficacy related to family presence.

Limitations
In interpreting the results of this study and planning future research, it is important to note how the study could be improved. One limitation was that participants reported solely about their experience in inviting family presence, not past experience with resuscitation in general. In our study, the focus was on nurses’ perceptions regardless of their experience with resuscitation and family presence. Because more than 75% of the sample had at least 6 years of nursing experience and more than 90% worked in acute care units, most participants probably had exposure to at least one resuscitation effort. However, we made no attempt to examine the effect of past experience with resuscitation in general on perceptions related to family presence. Because recent research5,20 suggests that exposure to resuscitation with or without family presence could influence attitudes and beliefs, experiences with resuscitation should be measured in future studies. Researchers could inquire about the number of resuscitations in which participants had been involved and the number of opportunities participants had to invite family presence.


Despite limited experience, nurses scored moderately high on self-confidence in providing the experience.

 

The limited variety in the ethnicity of participants and the geographic setting of the study constrain the generalizability of the results. Perceptions of family presence may vary across geographic regions and ethnic groups.17,25,42 Our sample was more than 90% white, although it did reflect the ethnic composition of the region in which data collection occurred. Therefore, replication of this study is recommended in other world regions and in multiethnic samples of nurses.


   Conclusions
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion and Implications
 Conclusions
References
 
Our results suggest that nurses hold widely divergent perceptions of risks, benefits, and their own self-confidence related to family presence. Nurses who hold professional certification, work in emergency departments, and are members of a professional organization are more favorable toward family presence than are other nurses, and they invite family presence more often. Increased participation in professional nursing organizations may provide greater exposure to current research and evidence-based practices related to family presence.

Perceptions of risks, benefits, and confidence in managing family presence are associated with the decisions nurses make about inviting family presence. Nurses who have high confidence view family presence as more beneficial and less risky. Active-learning strategies may boost nurses’ confidence about family presence.

Initial tests of the FPR-BS and FPS-CS indicate that the scales provide reliable and valid measures of nurses’ perceptions of risks, benefits, and self-confidence related to family presence. Further testing of both scales is needed, with the eventual goal of developing highly reliable and valid measures of nurses’ perceptions related to family presence. Evidence-based practice will be enhanced as concepts relevant to family presence are identified and measured consistently across studies.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 
We acknowledge the contribution of Dr James A. Jones, Ball State University, to the statistical analysis of this study.

To purchase electronic or print reprints, contact The InnoVision Group, 101 Columbia, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. Phone, (800) 809–2273 or (949) 362–2050 (ext 532); fax, (949) 362–2049; e-mail, reprints{at}aacn.org.

SEE ALSO
To learn more about family presence during resuscitation, visit http://ccn.aacnjournals.org and read the article by Mian and colleagues, "Impact of a Multifaceted Intervention on Nurses’ and Physicians’ Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Family Presence During Resuscitation" (Critical Care Nurse, February 2007).

eLetters
Now that you’ve read the article, create or contribute to an online discussion about this topic using eLetters. Just visit www.ajcconline.org and click "Respond to This Article" in either the full-text or PDF view of the article.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES
None reported.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Background
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion and Implications
 Conclusions
 References
 

  1. Mangurten J, Scott SH, Guzzetta CE, et al. Effects of family presence during resuscitation and invasive procedures in a pediatric emergency department. J Emerg Nurs. 2006; 32(3):225–233.[Medline]
  2. Meyers TA, Eichhorn DJ, Guzzetta CE, et al. Family presence during invasive procedures and resuscitation: the experience of family members, nurses, and physicians. Am J Nurs. 2000;100(2):32–41.[Medline]
  3. Meyers TA, Eichhorn DJ, Guzzetta CE. Do families want to be present during CPR? A retrospective survey. J Emerg Nurs. 1998;24(5):400–405.[Medline]
  4. Kidby J. Family-witnessed cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Nurs Stand. 2003;17(51):33–36.[Medline]
  5. Sacchetti A, Lichenstein R, Carraccio CA, Harris RH. Family member presence during pediatric emergency department procedures. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1996;12(4):268–271.[Medline]
  6. Robinson SM, Mackenzie-Ross S, Campbell Hewson GL, Egleston CV, Prevost AT. Psychological effect of witnessed resuscitation on bereaved relatives. Lancet. 1998;352(9128): 614–617.[Medline]
  7. Hanson C, Strawser D. Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Foote Hospital emergency department’s nine-year perspective. J Emerg Nurs. 1992;18(2):104–106.[Medline]
  8. Morris B. Witness protection ... allows relatives to witness resuscitations. Nurs Stand. 1998;12(50):12.[Medline]
  9. American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. Practice alert: family presence during CPR and invasive procedures. American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Web site. http://www.aacn.org/AACN/practiceAlert.nsf/vwdoc/pa2. Issued November 2004. Accessed December 12, 2007.
  10. Emergency Nurses Association. Presenting the Option for Family Presence. Park Ridge, IL: Emergency Nurses Association; 1995:1–84.
  11. Guidelines 2000 for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency vascular care: an international consensus on science. American Heart Association. Circulation. 2000; 102(8 suppl):I1–384.[Medline]
  12. MacLean S, Guzzetta CE, White C, et al. Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and invasive procedures: practices of critical care and emergency nurses. J Emerg Nurs. 2003;29(3):208–221.[Medline]
  13. White HD. Policy development plan for the concept of family presence in the Johns Hopkins Department of Radiology: a patient safety initiative. J Radiol Nurs. 2006;25(1):16–18.
  14. Knott A, Kee CC. Nurses’ beliefs about family presence during resuscitation. Appl Nurs Res. 2005;18(4):192–198.[Medline]
  15. Boudreaux ED, Francis JL, Loyacano T. Family presence during invasive procedures and resuscitations in the emergency department: a critical review and suggestions for future research. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40(2):193–205.[Medline]
  16. Helmer SD, Smith RS, Dort JM, Shapiro WM, Katan BS. Family presence during trauma resuscitation: a survey of AAST and ENA members. JTrauma. 2000;48(6):1015–1024.
  17. McClenathan BM, Torrington KG, Uyehara CF. Family member presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a survey of US and international critical care professionals. Chest. 2002;122:2204–2211.[Medline]
  18. Mitchell MH, Lynch MB. Should relatives be allowed in the resuscitation room? J Accid Emerg Med. 1997;14(6):366–369.[Abstract]
  19. Fein JA, Ganesh J, Alpern ER. Medical staff attitudes toward family presence during pediatric procedures. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2004;20:224–227.[Medline]
  20. Duran CR, Oman KS, Abel JJ, Koziel VM, Szymanski D. Attitudes toward and beliefs about family presence: a survey of healthcare providers, patients’ families, and patients. Am J Crit Care. 2007;16:270–279.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Beckman A, Sloan B, Moore G, et al. Should parents be present during emergency department procedures on children, and who should make that decision? A survey of emergency physician and nurse attitudes. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9(2):154–158.[Medline]
  22. Mian P, Warchal S, Whitney S, Fitzmaurice J, Tancredi D. Impact of a multifaceted intervention on nurses’ and physicians’ attitudes and behaviors toward family presence during resuscitation. Crit Care Nurse. 2007;27(1):52–61.[Free Full Text]
  23. Ellison S. Nurses’ attitudes toward family presence during resuscitative efforts and invasive procedures. J Emerg Nurs. 2003;29:515–521.[Medline]
  24. Bassler PC. The impact of education on nurses’ beliefs regarding family presence in a resuscitation room. J Nurses Staff Dev. 1999;15(3):126–131.[Medline]
  25. Ong ME, Chan YH, Srither DE, Lim YH. Asian medical staff attitudes towards witnessed resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2004;60(1):45–50.[Medline]
  26. Redley B, Hood K. Staff attitudes towards family presence during resuscitation. Accid Emerg Nurs. 1996;4(3):145–151.[Medline]
  27. Belanger J, Reed S. A rural community hospital’s experience with family-witnessed resuscitation. J Emerg Nurs. 1997;23:238–239.[Medline]
  28. Halm MA. Family presence during resuscitation: a critical review of the literature. Am J Crit Care. 2005;14:494–513.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Booth MG, Woolrich L, Kinsella J. Family witnessed resuscitation in UK emergency departments: a survey of practice. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004;21(9):725–728.[Medline]
  30. Nibert L, Ondrejka D. Family presence during pediatric resuscitation: an integrative review for evidence-based practice. J Pediatr Nurs. 2005;20(2):145–147.[Medline]
  31. Weslien M, Nilstun T, Lundqvist A, Fridlund B. Narratives about resuscitation: family members differ about presence. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2006;5(1):68–74.[Medline]
  32. van der Woning M. Relatives in the resuscitation area: a phenomenological study. Nurs Crit Care. 1999;4:186–192.
  33. Axelsson AB, Zettergren M, Axelsson C. Good and bad experiences of family presence during acute care and resuscitation. What makes the difference? Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2005;4(2):161–169.[Medline]
  34. Eichhorn DJ, Meyers TA, Guzzetta CE, et al. During invasive procedures and resuscitation: hearing the voice of the patient. Am J Nurs. 2001;101(5):48–55.[Medline]
  35. Grice AS, Picton P, Deakin CD. Study examining attitudes of staff, patients and relatives to witnessed resuscitation in adult intensive care units. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91(6):820–824.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Holzhauser K, Finucane J, De Vries SM. Family presence during resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial of the impact of family presence. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2006; 8(4):139–147.
  37. Wagner J. Lived experience of critically ill patients’ family members during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Crit Care. 2004;13:416–420.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Henderson D, Knapp J. Report of the National Consensus Conference on Family Presence During Pediatric Resuscitation and Procedures. J Emerg Nurs. 2006;32:23–29.[Medline]
  39. Boyd R, White S. Does witnessed cardiopulmonary resuscitation alter perceived stress in accident and emergency staff? Eur J Emerg Med. 2000;7(1):51–53.[Medline]
  40. Hallgrimsdottir E. Accident and emergency nurses’ perceptions and experiences of caring for families. J Clin Nurs. 2000;9:611–619.[Medline]
  41. Redley B, Botti M, Dike M. Family member presence during resuscitation in the emergency department: an Australian perspective. Emerg Med Australas. 2004;16(4):295–308.[Medline]
  42. Fulbrook P, Albarran J, Latour J. A European survey of critical care nurses attitudes and experiences of having family members present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Int J Nurs Stud. 2005;42(5):557–568.[Medline]
  43. Mangurten JA, Scott SH, Guzzetta CE, et al. Family presence: making room. Am J Nurs. 2005;105(5):40–48.[Medline]
  44. Clark AP, Aldridge MD, Guzzetta CE, et al. Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2005;17(1):23–32.[Medline]
  45. York NL. Implementing a family presence protocol option. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2004;23(2):84–88.[Medline]
  46. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 1995.
  47. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986.
  48. Hardin SR, Kaplow R. Synergy for Clinical Excellence: The AACN Synergy Model for Patient Care. Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2005.
  49. Stevens J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. 4th ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc; 2002.
  50. Berwick DM, Kotagal M. Restricted visiting hours in ICUs: time to change. JAMA. 2004;292(6):736–737.[Free Full Text]
  51. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, eds. Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs. London, England: nferNELSON; 1993:35–37.
  52. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in physiological activation and health-promoting behavior. In: Madden J, ed. Neurobiology of Learning, Emotion and Affect. NewYork, NY: Raven Press; 1991:229–270.

Related articles in AJCC:

Clinical Pearls
Mary Jo Grap
AJCC 2008 17: 100. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
A. M. Dalio
Family Presence During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Am. J. Crit. Care., July 1, 2008; 17(4): 310 - 310.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
R. Twibell, D. Siela, C. Riwitis, J. Wheatley, T. Riegle, D. Bousman, S. Cable, P. Caudill, S. Harrigan, R. Hollars, et al.
Response
Am. J. Crit. Care., July 1, 2008; 17(4): 310 - 311.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Respond to This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in AJCC
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Take the CE Test
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Twibell, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Neal, A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Twibell, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Neal, A.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS