An expert consensus–based checklist for quality appraisal of educational resources on adult basic life support: a Delphi study

IF 1.9 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-25 DOI:10.15441/ceem.23.049
Alexei Birkun, Adhish Gautam, Bernd W. Böttiger
{"title":"An expert consensus–based checklist for quality appraisal of educational resources on adult basic life support: a Delphi study","authors":"Alexei Birkun, Adhish Gautam, Bernd W. Böttiger","doi":"10.15441/ceem.23.049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Given the lack of a unified tool for appraising the quality of educational resources for lay-rescuer delivery of adult basic life support (BLS), this study aimed to develop an appropriate evaluation checklist based on a consensus of international experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a two-round Delphi study, participating experts completed questionnaires to rate each item of a predeveloped 72-item checklist indicating agreement that an item should be utilized to evaluate the conformance of an adult BLS educational resource with resuscitation guidelines. Consensus on item inclusion was defined as a rating of ≥7 points from ≥75% of experts. Experts were encouraged to add anonymous suggestions for modifying or adding new items.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 46 participants, 42 (91.3%) completed the first round (representatives of 25 countries with a median of 16 years of professional experience in resuscitation) and 40 (87.0%) completed the second round. Thirteen of 72 baseline items were excluded, 55 were included unchanged, four were included after modification, and four new items were added. The final checklist comprises 63 items under the subsections “safety” (one item), “recognition” (nine items), “call for help” (four items), “chest compressions” (12 items), “rescue breathing” (12 items), “defibrillation” (nine items), “continuation of CPR” (two items), “choking” (10 items) and “miscellaneous” (four items).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The produced checklist is a ready-to-use expert consensus–based tool for appraising the quality of educational content on lay-rescuer provision of adult BLS. The checklist gives content developers a tool to ensure educational resources comply with current resuscitation knowledge, and may serve as a component of a prospective standardized international framework for quality assurance in resuscitation education.</p>","PeriodicalId":10325,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790068/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.23.049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Given the lack of a unified tool for appraising the quality of educational resources for lay-rescuer delivery of adult basic life support (BLS), this study aimed to develop an appropriate evaluation checklist based on a consensus of international experts.

Methods: In a two-round Delphi study, participating experts completed questionnaires to rate each item of a predeveloped 72-item checklist indicating agreement that an item should be utilized to evaluate the conformance of an adult BLS educational resource with resuscitation guidelines. Consensus on item inclusion was defined as a rating of ≥7 points from ≥75% of experts. Experts were encouraged to add anonymous suggestions for modifying or adding new items.

Results: Of the 46 participants, 42 (91.3%) completed the first round (representatives of 25 countries with a median of 16 years of professional experience in resuscitation) and 40 (87.0%) completed the second round. Thirteen of 72 baseline items were excluded, 55 were included unchanged, four were included after modification, and four new items were added. The final checklist comprises 63 items under the subsections “safety” (one item), “recognition” (nine items), “call for help” (four items), “chest compressions” (12 items), “rescue breathing” (12 items), “defibrillation” (nine items), “continuation of CPR” (two items), “choking” (10 items) and “miscellaneous” (four items).

Conclusions: The produced checklist is a ready-to-use expert consensus–based tool for appraising the quality of educational content on lay-rescuer provision of adult BLS. The checklist gives content developers a tool to ensure educational resources comply with current resuscitation knowledge, and may serve as a component of a prospective standardized international framework for quality assurance in resuscitation education.

基于专家共识的成人基本生命支持教育资源质量评估清单:德尔菲研究。
目的:考虑到外行救援人员成人基本生命支持教育资源质量评价缺乏统一的工具,本研究旨在根据国际专家共识制定相应的评价清单。方法:在两轮德尔菲研究中,参与的专家完成问卷,对预先开发的72项清单中的每个项目进行评分,表明一个项目应该用于评估成人BLS教育资源与复苏指南的一致性的同意程度。项目纳入的共识定义为≥75%的专家给出≥7分的评分。专家们被鼓励匿名提出修改或增加新项目的建议。结果:在46名参与者中,42名(91.3%)完成了第一轮(代表25个国家,中位复苏专业经验为16年),40名(87.0%)完成了第二轮。72个基线项目中有13个被排除,55个未改变,4个被修改。另外增加了4个新项目。最终的清单包括63个项目,分别属于“安全”(1项)、“识别”(9项)、“呼叫帮助”(4项)、“胸部按压”(12项)、“抢救呼吸”(12项)、“除颤”(9项)、“心肺复苏术继续”(2项)、“窒息”(10项)和“杂项”(4项)。结论:生成的清单代表了基于专家共识的现成工具,用于评估非专业救援人员成人BLS教育内容的质量。建议内容开发者使用清单来确保教育资源符合当前的复苏知识,并可作为复苏教育质量保证的未来标准化国际框架的组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
59
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信