Introduction: The aim of the study was to assess the perceptions of critical care nurses at Prince Sultan Cardiac Center in Qassim (PSCCQ) and King Fahd Specialist Hospital (KFSH) in Buraydah regarding barriers and facilitators related to defibrillation practices. Methods: A quantitative, cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted using a convenience sample of 260 critical care nurses from PSCCQ and KFSH. The sample included nurses with more than 6 months of experience who agreed to participate in the study. A structured questionnaire, developed from relevant literature, was used to assess nurses’ demographics, perceived constraints, and anticipated facilitators for practicing defibrillation. Descriptive and inferential statistics, using SPSS version 30, were employed to summarize key findings. Results: Nurses reported moderate perceived constraints in performing defibrillation, underscoring the importance of training, equipment availability, teamwork, and clear protocols. While interdisciplinary collaboration and open communication were reported as strengths, management support, training opportunities, and compensation were notable weaknesses. Despite moderate overall support (mean = 3.05), gaps in regular drills and emotional assistance persisted. A significant positive correlation ( r = 0.549, P = 0.000) indicated that perceived support increased as perceived constraints increased. Furthermore, Saudi and higher-educated nurses reported significantly less perceived support to practice defibrillation, highlighting the influence of demographic factors on perceived institutional backing and readiness. Conclusion: The study concluded that nurses’ defibrillation practice is limited by systemic barriers, such as poor management support, limited hands-on training, and low recognition, while teamwork and clear protocols are strengths. Addressing these gaps through structured training, fair compensation, and better support is essential to enhancing nurses’ competence and patient safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shahin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: