How are Ambulance Personnel Prepared and Supported to Withhold or Terminate Resuscitation and Manage Patient Death in the Field? A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Research shows that ambulance personnel can find it challenging to withhold or terminate resuscitation and manage patient death in the field. This scoping review provides a synthesis of published research that has addressed three main questions. Each relates to ambulance personnel enacting decisions to withhold or terminate resuscitation and manage patient death: How are they prepare; what supports and coping strategies are utilised; and what preparation and support needs have been identified? Methods Using Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework this review identifies what is known and what further research is needed in this area. Results Sixteen methodologically heterogenous papers were located. Half of the studies were conducted in the United States, with the remainder in Canada, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Ambulance personnel receive little formal training and feel unprepared to manage situations where resuscitation is unsuccessful or unwarranted, particularly communicating with family, breaking bad news and managing death scenes. These aspects of termination of resuscitation are so challenging that distancing and avoidance are sometimes used as coping strategies, even when medical futility has been established. In addition to formal counselling for personal loss and stressors, ambulance personnel value downtime and informal peer debriefing, following difficult resuscitation decisions and patient deaths. Conclusion Ambulance personnel feel inadequately prepared to withhold or terminate resuscitation and manage patient death in the field. They want more opportunities to learn about death notification, communication with bereaved families and safe, sensitive management of death scenes. More research is needed to determine how best to prepare and support ambulance personnel for the challenges of resuscitation decision-making and patient death.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".