Search

Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is internationally defined as chest compressions and rescue breaths, and is a subset of resuscitation. First used for out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, CPR is now frequently used for in‐hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) with different causes and outcomes. Aims: This paper aims to describe clinical understanding of the role of in‐hospital CPR and perceived outcomes for IHCA. Methods: An online survey of a secondary care staff involved in resuscitation was conducted, focussing on definitions of CPR, features of do‐not‐attempt‐CPR conversations with patients and clinical case scenarios. Data were analysed using a simple descriptive approach. Results: Of 652 responses, 500 were complete and used for analysis. Two hundred eleven respondents were senior medical staff covering acute medical disciplines. Ninety‐one percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that defibrillation is part of CPR, and 96% believed CPR for IHCA included defibrillation. Responses to clinical scenarios were dissonant, with nearly half of respondents demonstrating a pattern of underestimating survival and subsequently showing a desire to offer CPR in similar scenarios with poor outcomes. This was unaffected by seniority and level of resuscitation training. Conclusions: The common use of CPR in hospital reflects the broader definition of resuscitation. Recapturing the CPR definition for clinicians and patients as only chest compressions and rescue breaths may allow clinicians to better discuss individualised resuscitation care to aide meaningful shared decision‐making around patient deterioration. This may involve reframing current in‐hospital algorithms and uncoupling CPR from wider resuscitative measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Online knowledge translation (KT) approaches are becoming increasingly prevalent within healthcare due to their accessibility and facilitation of international support networks. Online platforms enable timely and far‐reaching dissemination of current evidence and best‐practice recommendations. Although there is potential to improve the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines, it is essential to consider the acceptability of online approaches to healthcare professionals to ensure their successful integration within everyday clinical settings. Aims: To establish the prospective acceptability of a theoretically informed online intervention for speech pathologists, Aphasia Nexus: Connecting Evidence to Practice, that aims to facilitate the implementation of aphasia best practice. Methods & Procedures: A mixed‐methods multinational electronic survey based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) completed by aphasia researchers and clinicians. Outcomes & Results: A total of 43 participants completed the survey with 91% (n = 39) indicating that they would use Aphasia Nexus. Understanding the intervention and how it works (intervention coherence as per the TFA) was the key factor influencing the likelihood of integration within everyday clinical practice. Participants identified potential areas where the intervention could influence service change and also recommended further design and content changes to improve the intervention. Conclusions & Implications: Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable platform for further feasibility testing in the form of a pilot trial within an Australian‐based health service. The study progresses the theory of TFA as it was a valuable framework facilitating the identification of prominent factors influencing acceptability. The study also informs further intervention refinements in preparation for the next stage of research. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Online strategies have the potential to enhance KT and promote the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines. An online intervention, however, can only be effective if implemented well. For this reason, it is essential to establish the acceptability of online interventions to the intended recipients and therefore increase the likelihood of successful implementation. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study used a theoretically based framework to establish the acceptability of an online implementation intervention, Aphasia Nexus, to multinational aphasia clinicians and researchers. It demonstrated the value in identifying the prominent factors influencing acceptability to inform further intervention refinements and warrant continuing research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Speech pathologists should use online platforms to drive the implementation of best practice on an international scale. It is important for clinicians to have an in‐depth understanding of online interventions and how they work to enhance their successful uptake into routine clinical practice. Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable online platform for implementing best practice in aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]