JAN ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Presence of patients’ families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation:

physicians’ and nurses’ opinions
Fatma Demir

Accepted for publication 14 April 2008

Correspondence to F. Demir: D E M I R F . ( 2 0 0 8 ) Presence of patients’ families during cardiopulmonary resusci-

e-mail: fatma.demir@ege.edu.tr or tation: physicians’ and nurses’ opinions. Journal of Advanced Nursing 63(4), 409–
fddemir@yahoo.com 416
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04725.x
Fatma Demir PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Nursing, Ege University, Izmir, Abstract
Turkey Title. Presence of patients’ families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: physi-
cians’ and nurses’ opinions.
Aim. This paper is a report of a study to determine the opinions of physicians and
nurses who work in a university hospital intensive care unit and emergency
department about the presence of patients’ families during cardiopulmonary
resuscitation in these units.
Background. Healthcare professionals have conflicting opinions about the presence
of patients’ families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Families who are al-
lowed to be present have less fear and worry, feel they have supported their family
member and are able to cope more easily.
Method. The data for this descriptive questionnaire study were collected between
November 2006 and January 2007. The respondents were 62 physicians and 82
nurses who worked in an emergency department or in cardiology or anaesthesia
intensive care units in Turkey. The data were collected using a questionnaire and the
responses summarized using frequencies and percentages. The chi-squared test was
performed to test for differences in the opinion by profession, educational level, or
number of years of working experience in the profession.
Findings. The response rate was 79%. Of the respondents, 82Æ6% did not think it
was appropriate for patients’ families to be present during cardiopulmonary
resuscitation. The most common concerns mentioned were that the family would
interfere with the team’s activities (56Æ3%) and that resuscitation is a very traumatic
procedure (43Æ6%).
Conclusion. Policies need to be developed regarding this topic because the absence
of policy can cause misunderstanding and differences in practice. Further research is
needed to determine what public education is needed to facilitate implementation of
such policies.

Keywords: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, emergency nursing, family presence,

family-centred care, intensive care unit nursing, nursing, opinion

 2008 The Author. Journal compilation  2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 409
F. Demir
Introduction
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a combination of
rescue breathing and chest compressions delivered to victims
thought to be in cardiac arrest (American Heart Association
2007). It is generally implemented after cardiac arrest for the
purpose of saving the patient’s life (American Heart Associ-
ation 2005, Weslien et al. 2005).
Having a family member or members present in visual or
physical contact with the patient during CPR is known as
‘Patient’s Family Presence During CPR’ (Meyers et al. 2000,
Mason 2003, Meyers et al. 2004).
However, allowing the presence of family members during
CPR is an ethical issue. Resuscitation is a procedure that is
generally implemented suddenly and the survival rate after
the procedure is low (American Heart Association 2000,
2005, Baskett et al. 2005). Families who do not witness
resuscitation attempts are left anxiously awaiting an outcome
in waiting rooms. If the patient does not survive, families are
confronted with concerns that not enough was carried out to
save the patient, guilt that they were not with them and
sadness that they did not have a chance to say goodbye.
However, studies have shown that families who are allowed
to stay with the patient during CPR have less fear and worry,
feel they have supported their family member, are able to
cope more easily with their loss and feel like they have a right
to be with their loved one at such a critical time (American
Heart Association 2000, Sanford et al. 2002, Tercier 2002,
Meyers et al. 2004, Redley et al. 2004, Aldridge & Clark
2005, Baskett et al. 2005, Dill & Gance-Cleveland 2005).
Despite international research and guidelines offering the
option of family presence during CPR, this practice remains
highly controversial among healthcare providers and, as a
consequence, is rarely adopted in practice (Halm 2005).
Concerns about possible disruption to the resuscitation team,
the risk of litigation and lasting traumatic memories for
patients’ families are cited as factors that inhibit uptake of the
practice (Boudreaux et al. 2002, Sanford et al. 2002,
MacLean et al. 2003, Meyers et al. 2004, Aldridge & Clark
2005, Dill & Gance-Cleveland 2005, Halm 2005).
Background
The first reported practice of family-witnessed resuscitation
took place at the Foot Hospital in Michigan in the United
States of America in 1982. Doyle et al. (1987) published this
report, which was based on a study conducted with 70 family
members who were present during resuscitation.
The Emergency Nursing Association (ENA 2005) recom-
mended that clinical guidelines should offer family members
410  2008 The Author. Journal compilation  2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
the choice of being present during resuscitation. The Euro-
pean Resuscitation Council (Baskett et al. 2005) also recom-
mended in their resuscitation guidelines that families be given
the choice of being present during CPR; the American Heart
Association and the American Association of Critical Care
Nurses (2004) issued their own guidelines (Spittler 2006). In
2005, the American Heart Association advocated that this
practice needed to be addressed during advanced cardiac life
support and paediatric advanced cardiac life support courses,
and the ENA included this in their recommended trauma
nursing core course (Spittler 2006).
There are advantages and disadvantages of having patients’
families present during CPR for the patient, the family and
the healthcare professionals (Boudreaux et al. 2002, Sanford
et al. 2002, MacLean et al. 2003, Meyers et al. 2004,
Aldridge & Clark 2005, Dill & Gance-Cleveland 2005), and
these are summarized in Table 1.
Family presence during CPR is not a requirement or right
but a choice, and it may not be appropriate for every family
(Redley et al. 2004, Aldridge & Clark 2005). However, it is
recommended that a policy be developed for this procedure. In
such a policy, it is necessary for one of the healthcare
professionals (usually a nurse or physician) to be given this
duty to meet the family and determine whether or not the
family will be able to tolerate the situation. When the CPR
team deems appropriate, this individual meets with the
patient’s family, explains the situation and gives them the
option of going to the patient’s side for 3–5 minutes. When
this choice is accepted, this individual then gives the family
some information about the healthcare personnel, patient’s
appearance, how the procedure is carried out and for what
situations they will be taken out of the room, and then stays
with the family and answers their questions while they are in
the resuscitation area (Meyers et al. 2004, Baskett et al. 2005).
Most research on this topic has been conducted to
determine the opinions of families and healthcare profession-
als about having patients’ families present during CPR.
Findings from these studies revealed that the healthcare
providers have mixed opinions regarding this practice.
Helmer et al. (2000) reported that 64% of emergency nurses
and 18% of surgeons found the practice beneficial. In the
study by MacLean et al. (2003), 75% of intensive care unit
and emergency department nurses supported the presence of
families during CPR, and in the study by Meyers et al. (2004)
96% of emergency department nurses supported it. The
Meyers et al. (2000) and McClenathan et al. (2002) studies
showed that nurses supported the practice more than did
physicians.
Studies have also shown that families want to be able to
stay with the patient during CPR. In a study by Doyle et al.
JAN: ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Table 1 The advantages and disadvantages of having patients’ families present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
Advantages
The presence of patients’ families during CPR gives families an
opportunity to say goodbye
Families are aware of the effort given for their patients. They
are witnesses to everything necessary being carried out
Families feel like they supported the patient and did not leave
them alone
Fear and worry of families are lessened. It has a positive effect
on grieving and coping processes
With this practice the patient and family are considered as a
whole, family-centred care is provided and professional
behaviours are displayed
(1987), 94% of families who stayed with the patient stated
that if the same situation occurred again they would choose
to be with the patient again, and 76% stated that staying was
beneficial in helping them accept the death. In the 1998 study
by Meyers et al. 80% of the families would want to stay, and
in the 2000 study 97Æ5% of the families stated that they
would want to be with the patient during CPR, and 100%
stated that this would be beneficial for them.
In recent years, influenced by professional organizations,
the media and research conducted on this topic, there has
been a steady increase in the practice of allowing family
members to be present during CPR (Boudreaux et al. 2002,
McClenathan et al. 2002, MacLean et al. 2003, Meyers et al.
2004, Redley et al. 2004, Dill & Gance-Cleveland 2005). In
spite of these developments and research, healthcare profes-
sionals continue to have conflicting opinions on the issue
(Mason 2003, Meyers et al. 2004, Redley et al. 2004, Dill &
Gance-Cleveland 2005, Fulbrook et al. 2005). These con-
flicting opinions are also reflected in practice areas, and
institutional and personal differences occur (MacLean et al.
2003).
The study
Aim
The aim of the study was to determine the opinions of
physicians and nurses who work intensive care unit and in an
 2008 The Author. Journal compilation  2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Presence of patients’ families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Disadvantages
CPR is a very traumatic event for patients’ families
There is the possibility of repercussions (e.g. complaints, legal action)
Families may interfere with procedures
The team may be uncomfortable
It has a negative effect on patients’ privacy/confidentiality
There may not be enough room for the patients’ families in the
resuscitation room
It may have a negative effect on the technical performance of the
resuscitation team
If there are incorrect procedures litigation may occur
When CPR is unsuccessful there may be less confidence in the physician
It may increase the stress on the team
Families may not be able to endure this situation and may faint. Then the
team may have to care for the family member instead of taking care of
the patient, and their work would be hindered
emergency department about the practice of the presence of
patients’ families during CPR in these units.
Design
A descriptive survey design was used.
Participants
The study was conducted with staff in the emergency
department and the cardiology and anaesthesia intensive
care units of an 1811-bed, university-affiliated hospital in
western Turkey. There were 102 nurses and 79 physicians
working in these departments at the time of the study, and 62
physicians and 82 nurses participated. Therefore the response
rate was 79%. Among the 144 participants, 25 worked in
emergency department, 41 in cardiology and 78 in the
anaesthesia intensive care unit.
Data collection
The data were collected between 1 November 2006 and 26
January 2007. The aim of the study was explained to the
nurses and physicians at continuing education meetings in
their departments. The survey questionnaire developed by the
researcher based on the literature was given to those who
agreed to participate in the study. There were four open-
ended and 17 multiple choices in the questionnaire. The
411
F. Demir

open-ended questions concerned why was it necessary for Table 2 Respondent demographics
family members to be present or not to be present during Number (%)
CPR, who should make this decision, if the family was given
permission to be present during CPR what kind of reaction Department
Emergency department 25 (17Æ4)
they had, and whether or not the respondent had anything
Anaesthesia intensive care unit 78 (54Æ2)
they wanted to add. Cardiology intensive care unit 41 (28Æ4)
Age (years)
<30 96 (66Æ7)
Ethical considerations 30–39 40 (27Æ8)
40–49 5 (3Æ5)
The study was approved by a university ethics committee and
50–59 2 (1Æ4)
the medical directors of the hospital. Participant consent was ‡60 1 (0Æ7)
assumed by return of a completed questionnaire. Gender
Female 106 (73Æ6)
Male 38 (26Æ4)
Data analysis Profession
Physician 62 (43Æ1)
The data were evaluated using Statistical Package for Social
Nurse 82 (56Æ9)
Sciences. The responses were summarized using frequencies Education of physicians (n = 62)
and percentages. Responses to the open-ended questions were Medical degree 40 (64Æ5)
content analysed. The chi-square test was performed to test Specialization 22 (35Æ5)
for differences in opinion by profession, educational level and Education of nurses (n = 82)
Associate degree 9 (10Æ9)
number of years of working experience in the profession.
Baccalaureate degree 72 (87Æ9)
Master’s degree 1 (1Æ2)
Primary position of physician (n = 62)
Findings
Research assistant 40 (64Æ5)
The age range of the participating physicians and nurses’ was Specialist 15 (24Æ2)
22–62 years. The mean age was 29Æ18 ± 6Æ11, the median Associate professor 4 (6Æ5)
Professor 3 (4Æ8)
was 27Æ50 ± 6Æ11 and the interquartile range (Q3–Q1) was
Primary position of nurse (n = 82)
6Æ75 years. Participant demographics are given in Table 2. Manager/administrator nurse 9 (11Æ0)
Respondents who thought it appropriate for the families to Ward/intensive care unit nurse 73 (89Æ0)
be present during CPR (13/144) were asked why this was Number of years in profession
necessary. Of these, 76Æ9% (10/13) stated that families could <3 69 (47Æ9)
4–7 35 (24Æ3)
see how much effort was made, 69Æ2% (9/13) that they would
8–11 22 (15Æ3)
be able to accept the situation more easily, 46Æ1% (6/13) that 12–15 9 (6Æ3)
it is a family’s right, 15Æ3% (2/13) that it increases families’ 16–19 3 (2Æ1)
confidence in physicians and 7Æ6% (1/13) that it improves ‡20 6 (4Æ2)
professional behaviour. Total 144 (100Æ0)
The percentage of physicians and nurses who did not think
it appropriate for the patients’ families to be present during permission (3Æ3%, 4/119), it would lengthen the time of
CPR was 82Æ6% (119 of 144). The reasons given for this were resuscitation (2Æ5%, 3/119), there were no national guidelines
as follows: they would interfere with the team’s activities on this topic (1Æ6%, 2/119), there might be litigation against
(56Æ3%, 67 of 119), the procedure was extremely traumatic them (0Æ8%, 1/119) and there was not enough space for the
(43Æ6%, 52 of 119), the team would be under pressure and patient’s family in the work environment (0Æ8%, 1/119).
this would have a negative effect on their performance Respondents who stated that they had given permission for
(22Æ6%, 27 of 119), the family would incorrectly interpret the families to be present during CPR (8Æ3%) were asked how
CPR procedure (21Æ8%, 26/119), the practice is not appro- this affected the families. Of these 5Æ5%, stated that family
priate for the cultural background and educational level of members became ill and fainted, 2Æ7% that family members
the Turkish public (15Æ9%, 19/119), family members might experienced fear, worry and anxiety, 1Æ3% that family
become ill or might faint and force the team to have to leave members felt guilty because it was a traumatic event, but
the patient to deal with them (15Æ9%, 19/119), only family 91Æ6% of respondents had never given permission to family
members who are also healthcare personnel should be given members to observe CPR.

412  2008 The Author. Journal compilation  2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
JAN: ORIGINAL RESEARCH Presence of patients’ families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

The decision about whether the family could be present
during CPR should be a team decision, according to 47Æ2% of
the participating physicians and nurses; however, others
thought that the decision should be made by a physician and
nurse (26Æ4%), a physician (20Æ8%), the physician and family
(2Æ8%), or the family members (2Æ7%).
In response to the question about whether or not they
would like to add anything, 84Æ1% of physicians and nurses
did not add anything, but 8Æ3% stated that the Turkish
public’s cultural background and educational levels were not
appropriate for observing this procedure, 5Æ5% that it was
not necessary to traumatize the relatives and 2Æ1% that only
family members who were also healthcare personnel should
be given permission to observe CPR.
Responses to the fixed-choice questionnaire items are
shown in Table 3. There were no statistically significant
differences according to chi-square test for finding the
families’ presence during CPR to be appropriate according
to profession (v2 = 5Æ660, d.f. = 2, P = 0Æ060), educational
level (v2 = 1Æ844, d.f. = 4, P = 0Æ764) or number of years of
working experience in the profession (v2 = 9Æ977, d.f. = 10,
P = 0Æ443).
Discussion
Study limitations
This study was conducted in a university hospital emergency
department, cardiology and anaesthesia intensive care units
with physicians and nurses who were willing to participate.
There are some differences between the emergency depart-
ment and intensive care unit in terms of the rate of CPR,
patients’ conditions and the work environment. The fact that
participants worked in the different departments may be a
limitation of this study. In addition, the research would have
been more comprehensive if patients’ family members had
been included. Finally, in Turkey, health services are
provided by the Ministry of Health and funded by the

Table 3 Responses to fixed-choice questionnaire items about family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)

Number (%)

In your opinion should the patient’s family be present during CPR?

Yes 13 (9Æ0)
No 119 (82Æ6)
No idea 12 (8Æ4)
What are the practices related to family presence during CPR in the unit where you work?
We do not have any written policy that permits the presence of the patient’s family but we do 3 (2Æ1)
give permission
We do not have any written policy that permits the presence of the patient’s family and we do 135 (93Æ8)
not permit it
We do not have any written policy that permits the presence of the patient’s family but we do 2 (1Æ4)
give permission occasionally
We have a written policy that forbids the presence of patient’s families so we do not give permission 4 (2Æ8)
Have you received education about a family’s presence during CPR?
Yes, during my baccalaureate education 3 (2Æ1)
Yes, during my specialist training 1 (0Æ7)
Yes, in continuing education 2 (1Æ4)
Yes, at a conference, symposium 3 (2Æ1)
No, I have not 135 (93Æ8)
Have you read any articles/research about the families’ presence during CPR?
Yes 20 (13Æ9)
No 124 (86Æ1)
Did you know that international guidelines have recommendations on this subject?
Yes 3 (2Æ1)
No 141 (97Æ9)
Until now have you ever had a family member who wanted to be with the patient during CPR?
Rarely 51 (35Æ4)
Never 93 (64Æ6)
Until now have you ever given permission to a family member to observe CPR?
Rarely 12 (8Æ3)
Never 132 (91Æ7)
Total 144 (100Æ0)

 2008 The Author. Journal compilation  2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 413
F. Demir
Ministry of Finance. Therefore, it is not possible to make
direct comparisons with reports in the literature which relate
to countries where health care is funded through insurance or
other systems. However, it is suggested that the findings in
this study are useful at a national and an international level
by reflecting cultural differences in the opinions of healthcare
professionals.
Discussion of findings
Very few respondents (9%, 13 of 144) found it appropriate
for patients’ families to be present during CPR. This result is
very low in comparison with other research conducted in
recent years (MacLean et al. 2003, Meyers et al. 2004, Halm
2005). In the study by MacLean et al. (2003) 75% of
intensive care unit and emergency department nurses and in
the study by Meyers et al. (2004) 96% of emergency
department nurses supported the presence of families during
CPR. This difference in acceptance level may arise from
cultural differences There has been no research in Turkey on
how physicians’ or nurses’ assumptions about patients’
cultural and educational backgrounds affect their decisions
for their patients. Although this issue needs further investi-
gation, it is common for older and uneducated Turkish
women, in particular, but also for Turkish men, to express
their grief physically with loud wailing, beating their chests
and fainting. Patients’ family members have even assaulted
emergency department physicians and nurses in Turkey when
a patient has died. There is also the unfounded assumption by
nurses and physicians that people who are more culturally
‘refined’ and have a higher educational level will be more
likely to go to a private hospital and that the majority of their
patients at a university hospital are culturally ‘ignorant and
backward’. Although these attitudes are difficult to quantify,
they may have bearing on physicians and nurses’ attitudes
towards their patients, being judgmental, belittling or, in this
instance, not being willing to take the time to explain CPR to
family members.
In this study, the percentage of physicians and nurses who
did not think it was appropriate for the patients’ families to
be present during CPR was very high (82Æ6%, 119 of 144)
(Table 3). The reasons given for this were that the family
would interfere with the team (56Æ3%, 67 of 119), that the
procedure was extremely traumatic (43Æ6%, 52 of 144), and
that the team would be under pressure (22Æ6%, 27 of 119)
and it would have a negative effect on their performance. In a
study by Meyers et al. (2004), 38% of the healthcare
professionals thought that the family would interfere with
CPR, while Fulbrook et al. (2005) reported that 20Æ2% of the
nurses studied were concerned that it would have a negative
414  2008 The Author. Journal compilation  2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
emotional effect on the family. In the study by Meyers et al.
(2004), 57% of healthcare professionals were concerned that
the family would incorrectly interpret CPR and later demand
a legal investigation, while 26% of nurses said this in the
study by Fulbrook et al. (2005). In the current study,
however, 21Æ8% of respondents thought that the family
would incorrectly interpret the CPR procedure, and 0Æ8%
that they might open a court case. This result may have
occurred because of the low numbers of court cases opened
against healthcare personnel in Turkey. In contrast to all
these concerns, no reports were found in the literature of
problems with having the patients’ families present during
CPR, that families interfered with the procedure or that being
present had a negative effect on the family (MacLean et al.
2003, Redley et al. 2004, Aldridge & Clark 2005, Dill &
Gance-Cleveland 2005). During CPR when the family is
given the choice with the appropriate conditions mentioned
above, the concerns of healthcare professionals on this
subject may be alleviated.
In the present study, a very small percentage (2Æ5%, three of
119) of respondents thought that the duration of the resusci-
tation procedure would be extended in the presence of the
family. In the study by Fulbrook et al. (2005) 38Æ7% of the
nurses thought that this would be the case, but in the study by
Meyers et al. (2004) 85% of healthcare professionals stated
that they could comfortably work in the presence of the family
during CPR and 84% that, even if the family was present, their
performance and the patient outcomes would not change.
Nearly all (93Æ8%, 135 of 144) of the respondents in the
present study stated that there was no written policy on this
topic in the unit where they worked, and the that family
members were not permitted to be present during CPR. In the
study by MacLean et al. (2003) with intensive care unit and
emergency department nurses, the presence of a policy giving
the family the permission to be present during CPR was 5%
and the presence of a policy forbidding their presence was
1%. Our findings are therefore consistent with the literature.
Four of the physicians and nurses included in our research
stated that there was a written policy forbidding the presence
of the patients’ families during CPR. However, this is not
consistent with responses from other individuals working on
the same units. The managers of the three units where this
research was conducted were asked about this situation and
they responded that there was no written policy. In conclu-
sion, none of the units where this research was conducted had
a policy (giving permission or forbidding it) about the
presence of families during CPR. Not having a formal policy
may have led to misunderstanding and different practices.
Previous research has shown that the overwhelming
majority of families want to be with the patient during
JAN: ORIGINAL RESEARCH
What is already known about this topic
• Healthcare professionals have conflicting opinions
about the presence of patients’ families during car-
diopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
• Studies and guidelines offer the option of the presence
of patients’ families during CPR.
What this paper adds
• The majority of physicians and nurses did not think it
appropriate for patients’ families to be present during
CPR.
• The concerns of participants were consistent with
those reported in the literature except, that they
thought that the cultural background and educational
level of the public were not appropriate for their
attendance during resuscitation attempts.
• Policies need to be developed regarding this topic be-
cause the absence of policy can cause misunderstand-
ing and differences in practice.
• Further research is needed to determine what public
education is needed to facilitate implementation of
such policies.
CPR (Doyle et al. 1987, Meyers et al. 1998, Eichhorn et al.
2001, Redley et al. 2004, Baskett et al. 2005). However, in
the present study only one-third (35Æ4%) of the participating
physicians and nurses stated that families had asked to be
with the patient during CPR (Table 3). This percentage is
similar to that in the study by MacLean et al. (2003) but
lower than in the Helmer et al. (2000) study.
Respondents who stated that they had given permission to
families to be present during CPR (8Æ3%) were asked how
this affected the family, and they reported that all have had
negative experiences. This finding is different from that
reported in the literature, where the majority of healthcare
professionals describe positive experiences (Doyle et al. 1987,
Meyers et al. 2000, MacLean et al. 2003). In addition, it is
known that the presence of the families during CPR is
beneficial to the patient, the family and the healthcare
professionals (MacLean et al. 2003). In the study by
MacLean et al. (2003), 44% of nurses stated that it was
very beneficial for the patient and the family to be present
during CPR. In the current study, the reactions reported to
have been shown by family members present during CPR
may have been a result of lack of preparation, lack of
attention from healthcare personnel during CPR, or cultural
 2008 The Author. Journal compilation  2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Presence of patients’ families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
differences in responses to illness and death. In this study,
15Æ9% of respondents who stated that it was not appropriate
for the family to be present during CPR gave the reason as the
public was not having appropriate cultural backgrounds and
educational levels. This differs from reports in the literature.
In addition, in this study, the high percentage (91Æ7%) of
the physicians and nurses who have not given permission to
the patients’ families to be present during CPR may be
interpreted as their traditional practices and their lack of
knowledge on this current topic continues. An indicator of
this assumption is the finding that nearly all of the partici-
pants (93Æ8%) stated that they had not received education on
this topic, did not know that professional organizations had
made recommendations about it (97Æ9%) and had not read an
article or research about it (86Æ1%) (Table 3). It is suggested
that it would be beneficial to deal with the conflicting
information that healthcare professionals have about this
topic in continuing education programmes, and by develop-
ing written policies, starting national guideline development
projects, and following international publications and guide-
lines.
According to reports in the literature, nurses support the
presence of families during CPR more than do the physicians
(Helmer et al. 2000, Meyers et al. 2000, 2004, Boudreaux
et al. 2002, McClenathan et al. 2002, MacLean et al. 2003,
Mason 2003, Redley et al. 2004, Fulbrook et al. 2005). As
educational level and years of experience in the profession
increase, the percentage of those supporting family presence
during CPR also increases (Helmer et al. 2000, Meyers et al.
2000, Redley et al. 2004). In contrast, in this study, no
statistically significant differences were found in relation to
finding the family’s presence during CPR to be appropriate
according to profession, educational level or number of years
of working experience in the profession. This may be a result
of an inadequate number of personnel available to support
the family during CPR.
Conclusion
Nearly all of the physicians and the nurses who participated
in this research did not think that it was appropriate for
patients’ families to be present during CPR. The opinions and
experiences of families need to be investigated to evaluate the
effects of cultural background and educational level on the
topic. However, the absence of a permitting or forbidding
policy can cause misunderstanding and differences in
practice. It would be possible to eliminate the differences
and unnecessary concerns about this practice by developing a
formal policy for the units where this research was con-
ducted.
415
F. Demir
Author contributions
FD performed study design, data collection, data analysis and
drafting of the manuscript.
References
Aldridge M.D. & Clark A.P. (2005) Making the right choice.
Family presence and the CNS. Clinical Nurse Specialist 19, 113–
116.
American Association of Critical Care Nurses (2004) Practice Alert:
Family Presence During CPR and Invasive Procedures. Retrieved
from http://www.aacn.org on 10 September 2006.
American Heart Association (2000) Guidelines for cardiopulmonary
resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation
102(Suppl. 8), 1–374.
American Heart Association (2005) Guidelines for cardiopulmonary
resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation
112(Suppl. 24), 6–11.
American Heart Association (2007) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
(CPR). Retrieved from http://www.americanheart.org on 16
August 2007.
Baskett P.J.F., Steen P.A. & Bossaert L. (2005) European
Resuscitation Council Guidelines for resuscitation. Section 8. The
ethics of resuscitation and end-of-life decisions. Resuscitation
67(S1), S171–S180.
Boudreaux E.D., Francis J.L. & Loyacano T. (2002) Family presence
during invasive procedures or resuscitations in the emergency
department: a critical review and suggestions for future research.
Annals of Emergency Medicine 40, 193–205.
Dill K. & Gance-Cleveland B. (2005) Family-centred care. With you
until the end: family presence during failed resuscitation. Journal
for Specialists in Paediatric Nursing 10, 204–207.
Doyle C.J., Post H., Burney R.E., Maino J., Kefe M. & Rhee K.J.
(1987) Family participation during resuscitation: hearing the voice
of the patient. American Journal of Nursing 101, 48–55.
Eichhorn D., Meyers T.A., Guzetta C.E., Clark A.P., Klein J.D.,
Taliaferro E. & Calvin A.O. (2001) During invasive procedures
and resuscitation: hearing the voice of the patient. American
Journal of Nursing 101, 48–55.
Emergency Nursing Association (ENA) (2005) Position Statement.
Family Presence at the Bedside during Invasive Procedures and
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Retrieved from http://www.ena.
org on 16 August 2007.
Fulbrook P., Albarran J.W. & Latour J.M. (2005) A European survey
of critical care nurses’ attitudes and experiences of having family
416  2008 The Author. Journal compilation  2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
members present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Interna-
tional Journal of Nursing Studies 42, 557–568.
Halm M.A. (2005) Family presence during resuscitation: a critical
review of the literature. American Journal of Critical Care 14, 494–
511.
Helmer S.D., Smith R.S., Dort J.M., Shapiro W.M. & Katan B.S.
(2000) Family presence during trauma resuscitation: a survey of
AAST and ENA members. The Journal of Trauma 48, 1015–1022.
MacLean S.L., Guzzetta C.E., White C., Fontaine D., Eichhorn D.J.,
Meyers T.A. & Desy P. (2003) Family presence during cardio-
pulmonary resuscitation and invasive procedures. Practices of
critical care and emergency nurses. American Journal of Critical
Care 12, 246–256.
Mason D.J. (2003) Family presence: evidence versus tradition – guest
editorial-dealing with the problem of family presence in critical
care situations. American Journal of Critical Care 12, 190–192.
McClenathan B.M., Torrington K.G. & Uyehara C.F.T. (2002)
Family member presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A
survey of US and international critical care professionals. Chest
122, 2204–2211.
Meyers T., Eichhorn D. & Guzzetta C.E. (1998) Do families want to
be present during CPR? A retrospective survey. Journal of Emer-
gency Nursing 24, 400–405.
Meyers T.A., Eichhorn D.J., Guzzetta C.E., Clark A.P., Klein J.D.,
Taliaferro E. & Calvin A. (2000) Family presence during invasive
procedures and resuscitation. American Journal of Nursing 100,
32–43.
Meyers T.A., Eichhorn D.J., Guzzetta C.E., Clark A.P. & Taliaferro
E. (2004) Family presence during invasive procedures and resus-
citation. The experience of family members, nurses, and physi-
cians. Topics in Emergency Medicine 26, 61–73.
Redley B., Botti M. & Duke M. (2004) Family member presence
during resuscitation in the emergency department: an Australian
perspective. Emergency Medicine Australasia 16, 295–308.
Sanford M., Pugh D. & Warren N.A. (2002) Family presence during
CPR: new decisions in the twenty-first century. Critical Care
Nursing Quarterly 25, 61–66.
Spittler K.L. (2006) Family Presence during CPR and Invasive Pro-
cedures. Retrieved from http://www.pulmonaryreviews.com/
mar06/family.html on 31 August 2006.
Tercier J. (2002) The lips of the dead and the kiss of life: the con-
temporary death and the aesthetic of CPR. Journal of Historical
Sociology 15, 283–326.
Weslien M., Nilstun T., Lundqvist A. & Fridlund B. (2005) When the
unreal becomes real: family members’ experiences of cardiac arrest.
Nursing in Critical Care 10, 15–22.