Dr Sacjo, were you absent the day they refreshed you in ACLS? If you are a physician, I am scared. The dispatcher in interpreting the statement of the caller was correct in determining that CPR was indicated. The 2010 American Heart Association Emergency Cardiac Care guidelines call for CPR to be initiated in any UNRESPONSIVE patient who is breathing AGONALLY or INEFFECTIVELY. These sporadic, shallow breaths precede cardiac arrest and do not support life. Many bystanders are poor assessors of this type of breathing. Any time a caller volunteers statements such as "barely breathing", "gasping for breath", "turning blue," "snoring," "gurgling", "fighting for air" etc in an UNRESPONSIVE patient, CPR is indicated unless there are overriding factors such as DNR. There is no official statement regarding whether the patient had a DNR order or not. Certainly the “nurse” did not mention this, and if she *was* a nurse she would know you do not call 9-1-1 if the patient has a DNR. It can be very difficult for bystanders to determine if breaths in an unresponsive patient are normal or not; and harder for 9-1-1 dispatchers. 9-1-1 dispatchers are trained to identify a CPR segue by the facts and circumstances elicited from the caller. The caller’s statements are clear that there was an unresponsive patient who was AGONAL. Had the 9-1-1 operator NOT attempt CPR in a similar situation you would probably blame 9-1-1 for failing to do its job in their part of the patient care continuum. Also, the "nurse" caller did not object to the fact that CPR was needed! And SHE was there WITH the patient. So your comments about the dispatcher not being there to physically evaluate the patient are irrelevant. She relied on the caller’s statements. Nurse Colleen refused to perform CPR or get someone else to do it. She never objected to the fact that CPR was needed.

Next ad: " Do you have a parent you absolutely despise? Can't wait to get your hands on your inheritance? Bring them to Glenwood Gardens! We guarantee you the absolute shortest wait legally possible." WWJD? Read Luke 10:30-37

Blame the LEGAL system in America. Here are the bullet points. 1. And the most important point, I will bet a million dollars that an ATTORNEY told the facility not to allow staff to do CPR. 2. Apparently the state of California has laws to protect people that assist in CPR, however, If you did it wrong and the family sues you,,, guess WHO has to hire an ATTORNEY at a huge expense to prove you didnt do wrong. A jury will decide and YOU may still be sued by the family. 3. ATTORNEYS are the cause, not the facility. I dont want to have to hire an attorney at my expense to prove I did the right thing. if the state will provide an attorney for me free of charge, i will do CPR all day long. Final point, notice a lot of comments on this story. The first comment posted, "I bet the family will sue the nurse over this" YEP,, I would bet an attorney will make a fortune over this. (I said attorney) Life is all about suing someone over something.

This is an independent living facility which means residents could range from 55 to any age which the resident can acceptably perform activities of daily living e.g. Shower, eat, etc. I'm confused why anyone would be restricted to perform CPR if certfird as a good Samaritan. Yes... Typically an 87 y/o would raise a risk/benefit question; however, this could have been a very healthy 60 y/o and with this policy, would have died unneceassarily and would have missed out on many years of quality life. There MUST be more to this story.... This is beyond disturbing as reported and even more disturbing that it has been inaqdequately reported.

As a physician skilled in CPR, I feel that this media hype is well meant, but erroneous. The person deciding that CPR needed to be done is a telephone operator who has not seen the patient, but acknowledges that she is breathing even though shallowly. If she is breathing, she is not in cardiac arrest and CPR is of no benefit whatsoever. GLock-the paramedic- also points out another downside to chest compression in 87 yr olds, however, if she was really in cardiac arrest or ventricular fibrillation it may have then been worth the risk. In her situation, as I said above, there was absolutely no indication for CPR. I think it was very misguided by the phone operator to attempt to dictate therapy with expertise and no firm data to recommend any kind of therapy. Calling the paramedics was the proper approach, and probably why her daughter, an RN, found no fault with the way the situation was handled. It is a shame that this 87 yr old died, but not unexpected with an MI at that age.

I've been a paramedic for roughly 20 years. I would not, not ever, do CPR on an 87 year old patient. It's very likely that I would break some of her ribs (it tends to happen with younger patients, in fact I'd say it's pretty normal, after all you put quite some force onto the ribcage to get that compression through to the heart, but old patients like Ms Bayless, are even more prone to it) and at that age fractures don't heal as easily as at, let's say, 37. That's not counting any other possible complications that may affect such an old patient after successful CPR. Apart from that I'm personally against keeping such old people alive at any cost. I've seen the storage facilities for old people when I trained as nurse. Yes, I call nursing homes storage facilities for old people because when you have 40-odd beds on one ward and 30+ of them are filled with immobile patients who just lie there and wait to die, then it's a storage facility. My grandfather is almost 90. I hope that, eventually, he'll just fall asleep and never wake up again, that would be great, a soft, silent death, without suffering. And I tell you, I wouldn't do CPR on him either.

Have that so called nurse Colleen check out for drug use. I bet she has no problem taking the deceased women's meds. Did anyone else notice how long it takes her to respond to a question? Also, I am feeling there maybe a racial undertone of some sort at this facility.

I can't believe this. My jaw hit the floor when I saw this on the news. The most shocking to me: 911-'is anyone willing to help save this woman so she doesnt die' Employee-"Not at this time [sic]". I would NEVER allow a loved one to live in a place like this. These employees stood by and watched this woman die. Period. And the first comment they make is: "We extend our deeped sympathy... blah, blah, blah." This SHOULDNT be legal. Is there ANY legal recourse for this because a REGISTERED NURSE was on the scene? Isnt that derelection of duty or soemthing? Why in the world do you pay to employ a Nurse if she can't even perform CPR?!? There will be no "internal review"; this guy that gave the statement just said everything that will be "reviewed": they have a policy, the employees followed it. That comment is your internal review. I'm surprised anyone would allow their loved ones to live at a place like this. It must have been agonizing for this woman to be laying on that floor, barely breating, with literally hundreds of people just watching her. A five year old could perform CPR!! These employees COULD HAVE done something. I dont understand why ANYONE would send their loved one to a facility like this. I'd love to see this place's policy..and exactly how they "inform" residents and their families of their policy to stand around and watch people die if they require CPR. This is absolutely disgusting and unnecessary.

I can only pray that I never wind up in that facility. To stand by and watch another person die and refuse help because it's against policy must take some special training.

I don't care what part of assisted living part of the home you are in there suppost to be medical people on duty. They should have given her CPR. Maybe she would have been fine if they brought her out of it & lived many more years. She may have had a directivethat she didn't want ir , then that would be different. I myself would never go into one of those places. they only care about monies they get not the person