4.4 Article

Relatives' experiences during the next of kin's hospital stay after surviving cardiac arrest and therapeutic hypothermia

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR NURSING
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 353-359

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1177/1474515112459618

关键词

Cardiac arrest; hypothermia treatment; relatives

资金

  1. Department of Surgical Sciences - Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care at Uppsala University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To describe relatives' experiences during the next of kin's hospital stay after surviving a cardiac arrest (CA) treated with hypothermia at an intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Twenty relatives were interviewed when the person having suffered the CA was discharged from hospital, 1.5 to 6 weeks post-CA. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Three themes are described: The first period of chaos, Feeling secure in a difficult situation, and Living in a changed existence. Relatives found it difficult to assimilate the medical information and wanted it in written form. They wanted honest and clear information about their next of kin's condition and prognosis. They lacked rehabilitation plans after discharge from the medical ward. Relatives felt a need to maintain telephone contact with family members and friends, which was time-consuming. They felt guilty and had a conscience about these feelings. Relatives felt uncertain about the future, but still hopeful. Conclusion: Relatives asked for more information and individual rehabilitation plans. Booklets describing CA, the ICU stay and continuing care and rehabilitation directed at both the patients and their relatives are needed. Follow-up visits to the ICU staff, for both patients and relatives, need to be arranged. Hospitals should consider having a rehabilitation plan for this group of patients, which is presented by a team of healthcare professionals and that focuses on the individual's situation, including the consequences of their heart disease and brain damage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据