Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE

Resuscitation plus Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100835

S.A. Goldberg , R.E. Cash , G.A. Peters , D. Jiang , C. O’Brien , M.A. Hasdianda , E,M. Eberl , K.J. Salerno , J. Lees , J. Kaithamattam , J. Tom , A.R. Panchal , E. Goralnick

{"title":"Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial","authors":"S.A. Goldberg , R.E. Cash , G.A. Peters , D. Jiang , C. O’Brien , M.A. Hasdianda , E,M. Eberl , K.J. Salerno , J. Lees , J. Kaithamattam , J. Tom , A.R. Panchal , E. Goralnick","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>While just-in-time (JIT) training is associated with time and cost savings, limited evidence directly compares layperson CPR performance using JIT videos to in-person CPR courses. We measured layperson CPR performance using a JIT video compared to an in-person course or no training.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Adult employees at a professional sports stadium were randomized to perform CPR in a simulated scenario a) after completing an AHA HeartSaver® course, b) using a JIT training video, or c) neither (control). CPR performance was assessed by trained evaluators and QCPR-enabled simulators. The primary outcome was the performance of pre-defined critical actions. Participants were blinded to study objectives and trained evaluators used standardized checklists.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 230 eligible subjects, 221 were included in analysis, without significant differences in group characteristics. Correct CPR performance was low, though significantly higher in the AHA group (AHA: 40%, 95%CI 28–51; JIT: 15%, 95%CI 8–26; control 10%, 95%CI 4–19). Compression fraction was significantly greater in the AHA group (90%, IQR 69–98) compared to JIT (61%, IQR 29–89) or control (65%, IQR 33–93). An AED was requested more frequently in the AHA group (47%) than in the JIT (15%) or control (10%) groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>While overall performance of correct CPR skills was best following a traditional CPR course, laypersons using real-time video training performed as well as those taking an AHA HeartSaver® course on several key measures including time to chest compressions and compression rate.</div><div>Trial Registration.</div><div>NCT05983640.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100835"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11665291/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

While just-in-time (JIT) training is associated with time and cost savings, limited evidence directly compares layperson CPR performance using JIT videos to in-person CPR courses. We measured layperson CPR performance using a JIT video compared to an in-person course or no training.

Methods

Adult employees at a professional sports stadium were randomized to perform CPR in a simulated scenario a) after completing an AHA HeartSaver® course, b) using a JIT training video, or c) neither (control). CPR performance was assessed by trained evaluators and QCPR-enabled simulators. The primary outcome was the performance of pre-defined critical actions. Participants were blinded to study objectives and trained evaluators used standardized checklists.

Results

Of 230 eligible subjects, 221 were included in analysis, without significant differences in group characteristics. Correct CPR performance was low, though significantly higher in the AHA group (AHA: 40%, 95%CI 28–51; JIT: 15%, 95%CI 8–26; control 10%, 95%CI 4–19). Compression fraction was significantly greater in the AHA group (90%, IQR 69–98) compared to JIT (61%, IQR 29–89) or control (65%, IQR 33–93). An AED was requested more frequently in the AHA group (47%) than in the JIT (15%) or control (10%) groups.

Conclusions

While overall performance of correct CPR skills was best following a traditional CPR course, laypersons using real-time video training performed as well as those taking an AHA HeartSaver® course on several key measures including time to chest compressions and compression rate.

Trial Registration.

NCT05983640.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估视频支持的外行人CPR与标准培训课程的比较：一项随机对照试验。

背景：虽然准时制（JIT）培训与时间和成本节约有关，但有限的证据直接将使用JIT视频的非专业人员CPR表现与现场CPR课程进行比较。我们使用即时视频来衡量外行人的心肺复苏表现，并将其与现场课程或没有培训的人进行比较。方法：专业体育场馆的成年员工在模拟场景中随机进行心肺复苏术a)完成AHA HeartSaver®课程后，b)使用JIT培训视频，或c)两者都不进行（对照组）。心肺复苏术的表现由训练有素的评估员和qcpr启用模拟器进行评估。主要结果是预先定义的关键行动的表现。参与者不知道研究目标，训练有素的评估人员使用标准化清单。结果：在230名符合条件的受试者中，221名纳入分析，各组特征无显著差异。正确CPR表现较低，但AHA组明显较高(AHA: 40%, 95%CI 28-51；Jit: 15%, 95%ci 8-26；对照组10%，95%CI 4-19)。与JIT组（61%,IQR 29-89）或对照组（65%,IQR 33-93）相比，AHA组（90%,IQR 69-98）的压缩分数显著高于JIT组（61%,IQR 29-89）。AHA组使用AED的频率（47%）高于JIT组（15%）或对照组（10%）。结论：虽然传统CPR课程后正确CPR技能的整体表现最好，但使用实时视频培训的外行人在几项关键指标上的表现与参加AHA HeartSaver®课程的人一样，包括胸外按压时间和按压率。Registration.NCT05983640审判。

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