RE: WITNESSED ARRESTS

[Faye Jones]

Actually I agree having some limitation on when to do CPR is not a bad idea and merciful but I am not sure if “witnessed” is the way I would want to go. I am not sure if I would want to bet my license on a “first respondents” observation.  We have a lot of very hard working, wonderful non skilled people who work here but their assessment may not be accurate.  Personally I would want a policy that enabled me to observe for definite signs of brain death (dilated/fixed pupils etc) that would indicate that CPR would be futile.  This quandary is why we are very proactive about obtaining advance directives.      -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 9:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: WITNESSED ARRESTS   “What have we become as a society?”   I am not sure what you mean, but a code policy that CPR only begins if the arrest was witnessed sounds like an idea full of mercy for the individual that has expired – I don’t have the statistics at hand but the % of CPR performed successfully in the nursing home is extremely low (especially in someone that has not had a pulse for an undetermined amount of time). I wish we had that same policy at my facility.   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 9:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: WITNESSED ARRESTS   In a message dated 2/9/2004 11:59:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Many facilities have it a part of their code policy that CPR will not commence unless the arrest was witnessed