Background: Community First Responder (CFR) schemes support lay people to respond to medical emergencies,udworking closely with ambulance services. They operate widely in the UK. There has been no previous review of UKudliterature on these schemes. This is the first systematic scoping review of UK literature on CFR schemes, whichudidentifies the reasons for becoming a CFR, requirements for training and feedback and confusion between the CFRudrole and that of ambulance service staff. This study also reveals gaps in the evidence base for CFR schemes.udMethods: We conducted a systematic scoping review of the published literature, in the English language fromud2000 onwards using specific search terms in six databases. Narrative synthesis was used to analyse article content.udResults: Nine articles remained from the initial search of 15,969 articles after removing duplicates, title and abstractudand then full text review.udPeople were motivated to become CFRs through an altruistic desire to help others. They generally felt rewarded byudtheir work but recognised that the help they provided was limited by their training compared with ambulanceudstaff. There were concerns about the possible emotional impact on CFRs responding to incidents. CFRs felt thatudbetter feedback would enhance their learning. Ongoing training and support were viewed as essential to enableudCFRs to progress. They perceived that public recognition of the CFR role was low, patients sometimes confusingudthem with ambulance staff. Relationships with the ambulance service were sometimes ambivalent due to confusionudover roles. There was support for local autonomy of CFR schemes but with greater sharing of best practice.udDiscussion: Most studies dated from 2005 and were descriptive rather than analytical. In the UK and Australia CFRsudare usually lay volunteers equipped with basic skills for responding to medical emergencies, whereas in the US theyudinclude other emergency staff as well as lay people.udConclusion: Opportunities for future research include exploring experiences and perceptions of patients who haveudbeen treated by CFRs and other stakeholders, while also evaluating the effectiveness and costs of CFR schemes.
展开▼
