Cardiogenic Shock Challenges and Priorities: A Clinician Survey

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is common and survival outcomes have not substantially improved. Australia's geography presents unique challenges in the management of CS. The challenges and research priorities for clinicians pertaining to CS identification and management have yet to be described. Method: We used an exploratory sequential mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 clinicians (medical and nursing) to identify themes for quantitative evaluation. A total of 143 clinicians undertook quantitative evaluation through online survey. The interviews and surveys addressed current understanding of CS, status of cardiogenic systems and future research priorities. Results: There were 143 respondents: 16 (11%) emergency, cardiology 22 (16%), 37 (26%) intensive care, 54 (38%) nursing. In total, 107 (75%) believe CS is under-recognised. Thirteen (13; 9%) of respondents indicated their hospital had existing CS teams, all from metropolitan hospitals, and 40% thought additional access to mechanical circulatory support devices was required. Five (5; 11%) non-tertiary hospital respondents had not experienced a delay in transfer of a patient in CS. All respondents felt additional research, particularly into the management of CS, was required. Conclusions: Clinicians report that CS is under-recognised and further research into CS management is required. Access to specialised CS services is still an issue and CS protocolised pathways may be of value.