Training seniors in the operation of an automated external defibrillator: a randomized trial comparing two training methods.

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the differences in efficacy of 2 methods for training seniors in the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED). We tested the hypothesis that each training method (face-to-face instruction compared with video-based instruction) would result in similar AED performance on a manikin.
METHODS: Two hundred ten seniors from various senior centers were randomized to receive face-to-face or video-based instruction on AED skills. Seniors were assessed individually and tested on the speed and quality of AED performance. We retested 177 of these initial trainees 3 months after initial training. Similar performance measures were assessed.
RESULTS: Although there were statistically significant differences between the 2 training methods in terms of average time to shock at both evaluations, the results in general demonstrate that there were no clinically meaningful distinctions (time differences of <20 seconds) between the AED performance of seniors trained with a video and seniors trained in a face-to-face setting at the initial training or at the retention assessment. At the initial evaluation, overall performance was satisfactory, with greater than 98% trained with either method delivering a shock. However, at the 3-month follow-up, almost one fourth of trainees were not able to deliver a shock, and almost half were not able to correctly place the pads on the manikin.
CONCLUSION: We believe that seniors can be trained equally well in AED performance with video-based self-instruction or face-to-face instruction. How to maintain acceptable AED performance skills over time remains a challenge.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes