LAUSR

AIM International and national guidelines support in-hospital, family-witnessed resuscitation, provided that patients are not negatively affected. Empirical evidence regarding whether family presence interferes with resuscitation procedures is still scarce. The aim was to describe the prevalence and processes of family-witnessed resuscitation in hospitalised adult patients, and to investigate associations between family-witnessed resuscitation and the outcomes of resuscitation. METHODS Nationwide observational cohort study based on data from the Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. RESULTS In all, 3,257 patients with sudden, in-hospital cardiac arrests were included. Of those, 395 had family on site (12%), of whom 186 (6%) remained at the scene. It was more common to offer family the option to stay during resuscitation if the cardiac arrest occurred in emergency departments, intensive-care units or cardiac-care units, compared to hospital wards (44% vs. 26%, p < 0.001). It was also more common for a staff member to be assigned to take care of family in acute settings (68% vs. 56%, p = 0.017). Mean time from cardiac arrest to termination of resuscitation was longer in the presence of family (20.67 min vs. 17.49 min, p = 0.020), also when controlling for different patient and contextual covariates in a regression model (Stand(β) 0.039, p = 0.027). No differences were found between family-witnessed and non-family-witnessed resuscitation in survival immediately after resuscitation (57% vs. 53%, p = 0.291) or after 30 days (35% vs. 29%, p = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS In-hospital, family-witnessed resuscitation is uncommon, but the processes and outcomes do not seem to be negatively affected, suggesting that staff should routinely invite family to witness resuscitation.