Cardiopulmonary ArrestREAppropriateNCT02356029
Perception of Inappropriate CPR: a Multicenter International Cross-sectional Survey
An observational study of Cardiopulmonary Arrest, run by University Hospital, Ghent at 5 sites in Belgium.
Trial summary
The primary objective of this study is to determine how often cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is perceived as inappropriate by Healthcare Providers (HCPs) working in prehospital Ambulance Services and Emergency Departments. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Cardiopulmonary Arrest
- How many people
- 5,882 participants
- Where
- 5 sitesBelgium
- Study dates
- Mar 2015to Nov 2015
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: The survey will focus on Healthcare Providers (HCPs) directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients (out-of-hospital or in the Emergency Department (ED)): nurses, doctors, ED Technicians/Nurse Assistants and Emergency Medical Technicians(EMT)/Paramedics working in EDs and prehospital Ambulance Services active in the Emergency Medical Services system of the country. Hospitals in countries without established EDs but with a group of HCPs working inside the hospital and having as their daily duty the first care and stabilisation of patients arriving unplanned in the hospital are also eligible for participation in the study. The Local Investigator will clearly delineate this functional unit within the hospital thus determining the number of eligible HCPs within the center.
Who may be able to join
- Healthcare Provider working in Emergency Department or Ambulance Service directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients
Who cannot join
- Healthcare Provider working in Emergency Department or Ambulance Service not directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients
Trial locations and contacts
5 sites in 1 country.
5 sites in 1 country
Belgium5 sites
UMC Sint-Pieter
Brussels, 1000
UVC Brugmann
Brussels, 1020
Groupe Jolimont
Haine-Saint-Paul, 7100
CHU Tivoli
La Louvière, 7100
CHU Vesale Charleroi
Montigny-le-Tilleul, 6110
About this study
Official title: The REAppropriate Study: Perception of Inappropriate CPR: a Multicenter International Cross-sectional Survey
The primary objective of this study is to determine how often cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is perceived as inappropriate by Healthcare Providers (HCPs) working in prehospital Ambulance Services and Emergency Departments. Perception of inappropriate CPR is defined as resuscitation efforts perceived by HCPs as disproportionate to the expected prognosis of the patient in terms of survival or quality of life.
When a HCP perceives CPR as inappropriate, this may cause moral and emotional distress. This perception may be modulated by the personal background and professional role of the HCP, but also by his/her working conditions. Apart from the workload, the resulting distress can be influenced by the way non-technical skills are developed within the team and the ethical environment in which the HCP functions. Frequent exposure to similar patient care situations and/or a professional environment not acknowledging the distress may lead to deficient coping mechanisms and accumulation of moral distress. This may be associated with job leave, burnout and a decreased quality of patient care. Acute distress may also influence the quality of care provided to actual and future patients.
Secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate whether perceived inappropriateness of CPR is not only associated with patient related factors but also with personal characteristics and work related factors. Potential consequences for HCP's like moral distress and intentional job leave will be assessed.
Read the detailed description
The REAppropriate study is an international multicentric cross-sectional survey exploring perception of inappropriateness of CPR.
Objectives:
The primary objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of perceived inappropriateness of CPR (PICPR) of the last resuscitation performed out-of-hospital or in the Emergency Department (ED) by Healthcare Providers (HCP) working in prehospital Ambulance Services and EDs. PICPR is defined as resuscitation efforts perceived by HCPs as disproportionate to the expected prognosis of the patient in terms of survival or quality of life. Prevalence of PICPR is defined as the number of HCPs reporting PICPR in the last cardiac arrest situation they attended divided by the total number of surveyed HCPs.
Secondary objectives are to evaluate the hypothesis that PICPR is not only associated with patient related factors but also with personal characteristics and work related factors. Other objectives will be assessment of moral distress and intentional job leave.
In each participating country a National Coordinator is nominated by the Steering Committee. National Coordinators are selected because of their leading role in national or international scientific organisations related to Emergency Medicine and/or their teaching or research activities related to Emergency Medicine.
Each National Coordinator establishes a network of Local Investigators who coordinate study proceedings within EDs and Ambulance Services.
Study population:
The survey will focus on HCPs directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients (out-of-hospital or in the ED): nurses, doctors, ED Technicians/Nurse Assistants and Emergency Medical Technicians(EMT)/Paramedics working in EDs and prehospital Ambulance Services active in the Emergency Medical Services system of the country. Hospitals in countries without established EDs but with a group of HCPs working inside the hospital and having as their daily duty the first care and stabilisation of patients arriving unplanned in the hospital are also eligible for participation in the study. The Local Investigator will clearly delineate this functional unit within the hospital thus determining the number of eligible HCPs within the center.
Survey:
Two electronic questionnaires will be used: one for the Local Investigator of the ED or Ambulance Service and one for the HCPs.
Questionnaire for Local Investigator: this questionnaire requests quantitative data on organisational issues like number of beds, ED or Ambulance Service activity, number of doctors, nurses, EMTs/Paramedics etc. and a few questions about resuscitation practice.
Questionnaire for HCPs: the HCPs are asked about their personal characteristics and educational background. There are questions about their working conditions, job strain and teamwork within their professional environment. Their opinion is asked about possible reasons and statements concerning perception of (in)appropriate resuscitation. Finally they are questioned about the last resuscitation they were involved in themselves (it will not be necessary for them to have the medical file available while answering these questions). The HCP is first asked an opinion about the (in)appropriateness of the intervention and the resulting amount of moral and emotional distress, should this be the case. This is followed by questions about the circumstances of the cardiac arrest and a query on the relative importance of patient related, situational and interprofessional items. Four level Likert items are used where appropriate. Interest level analysis will be incorporated in the questionnaire to assist in assessing nonresponse bias.
Completion of the questionnaire will take approximately 20 minutes. Participation is on a voluntary basis.
Translation of surveys:
A modified Brislin's model of translation will be used. The primary questionnaires are in English. Both questionnaires are being translated in additional languages (the so called target languages) using the following procedure:
- The first step will be forward translation of the English questionnaire into the target language by two native speakers of the target language with a proficient knowledge of English and ideally with a background in the medical specialties covered by the topic of this research.
- The second step is that a third person whose native language is the target language reviews the translated versions together with the translators of step 1 for grammatical style and comprehensibility without the English text (so this can be a monolingual person). The most appropriate forward translation is chosen.
- When this has been achieved the third step is the back translation to the English language of the most appropriate forward translation by two different bilingual persons (ideally native English speaking with a proficient knowledge of the target language) who are blinded from the original English version. Again efforts are made that the back translators are professionally involved in the research field to improve the quality of the translation process. The two back translations are reviewed with a third person and the most appropriate back translation is chosen.
- In the last and fourth step the Steering Committee compares the most appropriate back translation of both questionnaires with the original English version. If necessary, recommendations will be done for modifications.
Throughout this process regular interaction and feedback with the Steering Committee will further optimise the quality of the translation.
Information Technology:
All the data will be collected through the use of a website especially designed for this study. Normal web applications use HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) to transfer web pages between the web server and the web browser. In order to guarantee data safety a HTTPS website signed by a trusted certificate authority will be used for this project. All the transferred data are encrypted in these circumstances and can only be read by the web browser and the web server.
Ethics approval:
For the HCP no risk is associated with participation in the study since the survey is completely anonymous. Insight in medical files is unnecessary to complete the questionnaires.
The National Coordinator will submit the protocol to one or more national ethical committees according to the rules applied in his/her jurisdiction. Ethical approvals should be sent to the Steering Committee.
If necessary, written informed consent will be obtained from the participating HCPs. Otherwise, completion of the questionnaire by the HCP will be taken as evidence of consent to study participation. In countries where informed consent must be obtained, it is preferable that the informed consent is uniform for the whole country.
Centers are not allowed to retrieve and report data unless ethical approval or after reporting to the Steering Committee there is no requirement for ethical approval for their country.
- Conditions
- Cardiopulmonary Arrest
- Keywords
- Cardiopulmonary Arrest, Emergency Medical Services, Medical Futility, Decision Making, Emotional Stress, Burnout, Professional
- Medical subject headings
- Heart Arrest, Stress, Psychological, Burnout, Professional
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| EMS Healthcare Providers | Healthcare Providers working in Emergency Medical Services and directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients (out-of-hospital or in the Emergency Department) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The number of Healthcare Providers (HCPs) reporting Perceived Inappropriateness of CPR (PICPR) in the last cardiac arrest situation attended divided by the total number of surveyed HCPs
Measured: 2 weeks
Secondary outcomes (1)
Moral distress and intentional job leave associated with Perceived Inappropriateness of CPR (PICPR)
Moral distress defined as when one knows the right thing to do, but institutional constraints make it nearly impossible to pursue the right course of action
Measured: 2 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Feb 2015 (estimated)
- Study startMar 2015
- Primary completionNov 2015
- Study completionNov 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cardiopulmonary ArrestStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University Hospital, GhentThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 5,882 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Ghent
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Patrick M Druwé, MD, Principal investigator, University Hospital, Ghent
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02356029
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- B670201422126
- Acronym
- REAppropriate
- Status last verified
- May 2018
- First submitted
- 14 Jan 2015
- Last updated
- 17 May 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Marco CA, Bessman ES, Kelen GD. Ethical issues of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: comparison of emergency physician practices from 1995 to 2007. Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Mar;16(3):270-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00348.x. Epub 2009 Jan 9.
PubMed 19183108Marco CA, Schears RM. Prehospital resuscitation practices: a survey of prehospital providers. J Emerg Med. 2003 Jan;24(1):101-6. doi: 10.1016/s0736-4679(02)00688-1.
PubMed 12554050Partridge RA, Virk A, Sayah A, Antosia R. Field experience with prehospital advance directives. Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Nov;32(5):589-93. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70038-1.
PubMed 9795323Druwe P, Monsieurs KG, Gagg J, Nakahara S, Cocchi MN, Elo G, van Schuppen H, Alpert EA, Truhlar A, Huybrechts SA, Mpotos N, Paal P, BjOrshol C, Xanthos T, Joly LM, Roessler M, Deasy C, Svavarsdottir H, Nurmi J, Owczuk R, Salmeron PP, Cimpoesu D, Fuenzalida PA, Raffay V, Steen J, Decruyenaere J, De Paepe P, Piers R, Benoit DD; REAPPROPRIATE study group. Impact of perceived inappropiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation on emergency clinicians' intention to leave the job: Results from a cross-sectional survey in 288 centres across 24 countries. Resuscitation. 2021 Jan;158:41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.10.043. Epub 2020 Nov 20.
PubMed 33227397
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 May 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The REAppropriate Study: Perception of Inappropriate CPR: a Multicenter International Cross-sectional Survey
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02356029
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- REAppropriate / B670201422126
- Conditions
- Cardiopulmonary Arrest
- Keywords
- Cardiopulmonary Arrest, Emergency Medical Services, Medical Futility, Decision Making, Emotional Stress, Burnout, Professional
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 5,882 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, GhentUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Mar 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Nov 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Nov 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Feb 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The primary objective of this study is to determine how often cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is perceived as inappropriate by Healthcare Providers (HCPs) working in prehospital Ambulance Services and Emergency Departments. Perception of inappropriate CPR is defined as resuscitation efforts perceived by HCPs as disproportionate to the expected prognosis of the patient in terms of survival or quality of life.
When a HCP perceives CPR as inappropriate, this may cause moral and emotional distress. This perception may be modulated by the personal background and professional role of the HCP, but also by his/her working conditions. Apart from the workload, the resulting distress can be influenced by the way non-technical skills are developed within the team and the ethical environment in which the HCP functions. Frequent exposure to similar patient care situations and/or a professional environment not acknowledging the distress may lead to deficient coping mechanisms and accumulation of moral distress. This may be associated with job leave, burnout and a decreased quality of patient care. Acute distress may also influence the quality of care provided to actual and future patients.
Secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate whether perceived inappropriateness of CPR is not only associated with patient related factors but also with personal characteristics and work related factors. Potential consequences for HCP's like moral distress and intentional job leave will be assessed.
Detailed description
The REAppropriate study is an international multicentric cross-sectional survey exploring perception of inappropriateness of CPR.
Objectives:
The primary objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of perceived inappropriateness of CPR (PICPR) of the last resuscitation performed out-of-hospital or in the Emergency Department (ED) by Healthcare Providers (HCP) working in prehospital Ambulance Services and EDs. PICPR is defined as resuscitation efforts perceived by HCPs as disproportionate to the expected prognosis of the patient in terms of survival or quality of life. Prevalence of PICPR is defined as the number of HCPs reporting PICPR in the last cardiac arrest situation they attended divided by the total number of surveyed HCPs.
Secondary objectives are to evaluate the hypothesis that PICPR is not only associated with patient related factors but also with personal characteristics and work related factors. Other objectives will be assessment of moral distress and intentional job leave.
In each participating country a National Coordinator is nominated by the Steering Committee. National Coordinators are selected because of their leading role in national or international scientific organisations related to Emergency Medicine and/or their teaching or research activities related to Emergency Medicine.
Each National Coordinator establishes a network of Local Investigators who coordinate study proceedings within EDs and Ambulance Services.
Study population:
The survey will focus on HCPs directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients (out-of-hospital or in the ED): nurses, doctors, ED Technicians/Nurse Assistants and Emergency Medical Technicians(EMT)/Paramedics working in EDs and prehospital Ambulance Services active in the Emergency Medical Services system of the country. Hospitals in countries without established EDs but with a group of HCPs working inside the hospital and having as their daily duty the first care and stabilisation of patients arriving unplanned in the hospital are also eligible for participation in the study. The Local Investigator will clearly delineate this functional unit within the hospital thus determining the number of eligible HCPs within the center.
Survey:
Two electronic questionnaires will be used: one for the Local Investigator of the ED or Ambulance Service and one for the HCPs.
Questionnaire for Local Investigator: this questionnaire requests quantitative data on organisational issues like number of beds, ED or Ambulance Service activity, number of doctors, nurses, EMTs/Paramedics etc. and a few questions about resuscitation practice.
Questionnaire for HCPs: the HCPs are asked about their personal characteristics and educational background. There are questions about their working conditions, job strain and teamwork within their professional environment. Their opinion is asked about possible reasons and statements concerning perception of (in)appropriate resuscitation. Finally they are questioned about the last resuscitation they were involved in themselves (it will not be necessary for them to have the medical file available while answering these questions). The HCP is first asked an opinion about the (in)appropriateness of the intervention and the resulting amount of moral and emotional distress, should this be the case. This is followed by questions about the circumstances of the cardiac arrest and a query on the relative importance of patient related, situational and interprofessional items. Four level Likert items are used where appropriate. Interest level analysis will be incorporated in the questionnaire to assist in assessing nonresponse bias.
Completion of the questionnaire will take approximately 20 minutes. Participation is on a voluntary basis.
Translation of surveys:
A modified Brislin's model of translation will be used. The primary questionnaires are in English. Both questionnaires are being translated in additional languages (the so called target languages) using the following procedure:
- The first step will be forward translation of the English questionnaire into the target language by two native speakers of the target language with a proficient knowledge of English and ideally with a background in the medical specialties covered by the topic of this research.
- The second step is that a third person whose native language is the target language reviews the translated versions together with the translators of step 1 for grammatical style and comprehensibility without the English text (so this can be a monolingual person). The most appropriate forward translation is chosen.
- When this has been achieved the third step is the back translation to the English language of the most appropriate forward translation by two different bilingual persons (ideally native English speaking with a proficient knowledge of the target language) who are blinded from the original English version. Again efforts are made that the back translators are professionally involved in the research field to improve the quality of the translation process. The two back translations are reviewed with a third person and the most appropriate back translation is chosen.
- In the last and fourth step the Steering Committee compares the most appropriate back translation of both questionnaires with the original English version. If necessary, recommendations will be done for modifications.
Throughout this process regular interaction and feedback with the Steering Committee will further optimise the quality of the translation.
Information Technology:
All the data will be collected through the use of a website especially designed for this study. Normal web applications use HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) to transfer web pages between the web server and the web browser. In order to guarantee data safety a HTTPS website signed by a trusted certificate authority will be used for this project. All the transferred data are encrypted in these circumstances and can only be read by the web browser and the web server.
Ethics approval:
For the HCP no risk is associated with participation in the study since the survey is completely anonymous. Insight in medical files is unnecessary to complete the questionnaires.
The National Coordinator will submit the protocol to one or more national ethical committees according to the rules applied in his/her jurisdiction. Ethical approvals should be sent to the Steering Committee.
If necessary, written informed consent will be obtained from the participating HCPs. Otherwise, completion of the questionnaire by the HCP will be taken as evidence of consent to study participation. In countries where informed consent must be obtained, it is preferable that the informed consent is uniform for the whole country.
Centers are not allowed to retrieve and report data unless ethical approval or after reporting to the Steering Committee there is no requirement for ethical approval for their country.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| EMS Healthcare Providers | – | –Healthcare Providers working in Emergency Medical Services and directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients (out-of-hospital or in the Emergency Department) |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The survey will focus on Healthcare Providers (HCPs) directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients (out-of-hospital or in the Emergency Department (ED)): nurses, doctors, ED Technicians/Nurse Assistants and Emergency Medical Technicians(EMT)/Paramedics working in EDs and prehospital Ambulance Services active in the Emergency Medical Services system of the country. Hospitals in countries without established EDs but with a group of HCPs working inside the hospital and having as their daily duty the first care and stabilisation of patients arriving unplanned in the hospital are also eligible for participation in the study. The Local Investigator will clearly delineate this functional unit within the hospital thus determining the number of eligible HCPs within the center.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Healthcare Provider working in Emergency Department or Ambulance Service directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Healthcare Provider working in Emergency Department or Ambulance Service not directly involved in treatment of cardiac arrest patients
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
The number of Healthcare Providers (HCPs) reporting Perceived Inappropriateness of CPR (PICPR) in the last cardiac arrest situation attended divided by the total number of surveyed HCPs
Time frame: 2 weeks
1 secondary outcome
Moral distress and intentional job leave associated with Perceived Inappropriateness of CPR (PICPR)
Time frame: 2 weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 May 2018.
- Results publication: PubMed 19183108Marco CA, Bessman ES, Kelen GD. Ethical issues of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: comparison of emergency physician practices from 1995 to 2007. Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Mar;16(3):270-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00348.x. Epub 2009 Jan 9.
- Results publication: PubMed 12554050Marco CA, Schears RM. Prehospital resuscitation practices: a survey of prehospital providers. J Emerg Med. 2003 Jan;24(1):101-6. doi: 10.1016/s0736-4679(02)00688-1.
- Results publication: PubMed 9795323Partridge RA, Virk A, Sayah A, Antosia R. Field experience with prehospital advance directives. Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Nov;32(5):589-93. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70038-1.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33227397Druwe P, Monsieurs KG, Gagg J, Nakahara S, Cocchi MN, Elo G, van Schuppen H, Alpert EA, Truhlar A, Huybrechts SA, Mpotos N, Paal P, BjOrshol C, Xanthos T, Joly LM, Roessler M, Deasy C, Svavarsdottir H, Nurmi J, Owczuk R, Salmeron PP, Cimpoesu D, Fuenzalida PA, Raffay V, Steen J, Decruyenaere J, De Paepe P, Piers R, Benoit DD; REAPPROPRIATE study group. Impact of perceived inappropiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation on emergency clinicians' intention to leave the job: Results from a cross-sectional survey in 288 centres across 24 countries. Resuscitation. 2021 Jan;158:41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.10.043. Epub 2020 Nov 20.
Related trials for Cardiopulmonary Arrest
Not yet recruiting
Compression-Only Versus Standard Basic Life Support Training in Nursing Students
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Not yet recruiting
Execution of Prehospital Transesophageal Echocardiography During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Patients With Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest
Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA)
Active, not recruiting
The REVIVE-PEEP Trial: Positive End-expiratory Pressure Versus Sham Valve/Zero End-expiratory Pressure in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Manual Ventilation to Improve Neurological Outcomes at Discharge in Adult Patients Suffering an Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest
Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital
Active, not recruiting
RACE-CARS - RAndomized Cluster Evaluation of Cardiac ARrest Systems
Cardiac Arrest
RecruitingObservational study
Cardiac Arrest - Ultrasound Detection of Occult Perfusion
Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital, Hypotension
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Patrick M Druwé, MD principal investigator
University Hospital, Ghent
5 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Cardiopulmonary Arrest, run by University Hospital, Ghent at 5 sites in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 May 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 5 sites in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The number of Healthcare Providers (HCPs) reporting Perceived Inappropriateness of CPR (PICPR) in the last cardiac arrest situation attended divided by the total number of surveyed HCPs (time frame: 2 weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02356029, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 May 2018.