How senior paramedics decide to cease resuscitation in pulseless electrical activity out of hospital cardiac arrest: a mixed methods study

Background: Evidenced-based guidelines on when to cease resuscitation for pulseless electrical activity are limited and support for paramedics typically defaults to the senior clinician. Senior clinicians include paramedics employed to work beyond the scope of clinical guidelines as there may be a point at which it is reasonable to cease resuscitation. To support these decisions, one ambulance service has applied a locally derived cessation of resuscitation checklist. This study aimed to describe the patient, clinical and system factors and examine senior clinician experiences when ceasing resuscitation for pulseless electrical activity. Design and methods: An explanatory sequential mixed method study was conducted in one ambulance service in the South West of England. A consecutive sample of checklist data for adult pulseless electrical activity were retrieved from 1st December 2015 to 31st December 2018. Unexpected results which required exploration were identified and developed into semi-structured interview questions. A purposive sample of senior clinicians who ceased resuscitation and applied the checklist were interviewed. Content framework analysis was applied to the qualitative findings. Results: Senior clinicians ceased resuscitation for 50 patients in the presence of factors known to optimise survival: Witnessed cardiac arrest (n = 37, 74%), bystander resuscitation (n = 30, 60%), defibrillation (n = 22, 44%), return of spontaneous circulation (n = 8, 16%). Significant association was found between witnessed cardiac arrest and bystander resuscitation (p =.00). Six senior clinicians were interviewed, and analysis resulted in four themes: defining resuscitation futility, the impact of ceasing resuscitation, conflicting views and clinical decision tools. In the local context, senior clinicians applied their clinical judgement to balance survivability. Multiple factors were considered as the decision to cease resuscitation was not always clear. Senior clinicians deviated from the checklist when the patient was perceived as non-survivable. Conclusion: Senior clinicians applied clinical judgement to assess patients as non-survivable or when continued resuscitation was considered harmful with no patient benefit. Senior clinicians perceived pre-existing factors with duration of resuscitation and clinical factors known to optimise patient survival. Future practice could look beyond a set criteria in which to cease resuscitation, however, it would be helpful to investigate the value or threshold of factors associated with patient outcome.