OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of brief bedside "booster" cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training to improve CPR guideline compliance of hospital-based pediatric providers. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial. SETTING:General pediatric wards at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. SUBJECTS:Sixty-nine Basic Life Support-certified hospital-based providers. INTERVENTION: CPR recording/feedback defibrillators were used to evaluate CPR quality during simulated pediatric arrest. After a 60-sec pretraining CPR evaluation, subjects were randomly assigned to one of three instructional/feedback methods to be used during CPR booster training sessions. All sessions (training/CPR manikin practice) were of equal duration (2 mins) and differed only in the method of corrective feedback given to participants during the session. The study arms were as follows: 1) instructor-only training; 2) automated defibrillator feedback only; and 3) instructor training combined with automated feedback. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Before instruction, 57% of the care providers performed compressions within guideline rate recommendations (rate >90 min(-1) and <120 min(-1)); 71% met minimum depth targets (depth, >38 mm); and 36% met overall CPR compliance (rate and depth within targets). After instruction, guideline compliance improved (instructor-only training: rate 52% to 87% [p .01], and overall CPR compliance, 43% to 78% [p < .02]; automated feedback only: rate, 70% to 96% [p = .02], depth, 61% to 100% [p < .01], and overall CPR compliance, 35% to 96% [p < .01]; and instructor training combined with automated feedback: rate 48% to 100% [p < .01], depth, 78% to 100% [p < .02], and overall CPR compliance, 30% to 100% [p < .01]). CONCLUSIONS: Before booster CPR instruction, most certified Pediatric Basic Life Support providers did not perform guideline-compliant CPR. After a brief bedside training, CPR quality improved irrespective of training content (instructor vs. automated feedback). Future studies should investigate bedside training to improve CPR quality during actual pediatric cardiac arrests.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of brief bedside "booster" cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training to improve CPR guideline compliance of hospital-based pediatric providers. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial. SETTING: General pediatric wards at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. SUBJECTS: Sixty-nine Basic Life Support-certified hospital-based providers. INTERVENTION: CPR recording/feedback defibrillators were used to evaluate CPR quality during simulated pediatric arrest. After a 60-sec pretraining CPR evaluation, subjects were randomly assigned to one of three instructional/feedback methods to be used during CPR booster training sessions. All sessions (training/CPR manikin practice) were of equal duration (2 mins) and differed only in the method of corrective feedback given to participants during the session. The study arms were as follows: 1) instructor-only training; 2) automated defibrillator feedback only; and 3) instructor training combined with automated feedback. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Before instruction, 57% of the care providers performed compressions within guideline rate recommendations (rate >90 min(-1) and <120 min(-1)); 71% met minimum depth targets (depth, >38 mm); and 36% met overall CPR compliance (rate and depth within targets). After instruction, guideline compliance improved (instructor-only training: rate 52% to 87% [p .01], and overall CPR compliance, 43% to 78% [p < .02]; automated feedback only: rate, 70% to 96% [p = .02], depth, 61% to 100% [p < .01], and overall CPR compliance, 35% to 96% [p < .01]; and instructor training combined with automated feedback: rate 48% to 100% [p < .01], depth, 78% to 100% [p < .02], and overall CPR compliance, 30% to 100% [p < .01]). CONCLUSIONS: Before booster CPR instruction, most certified Pediatric Basic Life Support providers did not perform guideline-compliant CPR. After a brief bedside training, CPR quality improved irrespective of training content (instructor vs. automated feedback). Future studies should investigate bedside training to improve CPR quality during actual pediatric cardiac arrests.
Authors: R J Van Hoeyweghen; L L Bossaert; A Mullie; P Calle; P Martens; W A Buylaert; H Delooz Journal: Resuscitation Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: C Zebuhr; R M Sutton; W Morrison; D Niles; L Boyle; A Nishisaki; P Meaney; J Leffelman; R A Berg; V M Nadkarni Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Andrew D McInnes; Robert M Sutton; Alberto Orioles; Akira Nishisaki; Dana Niles; Benjamin S Abella; Matthew R Maltese; Robert A Berg; Vinay Nadkarni Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Robert M Sutton; Dana Niles; Peter A Meaney; Richard Aplenc; Benjamin French; Benjamin S Abella; Evelyn L Lengetti; Robert A Berg; Mark A Helfaer; Vinay Nadkarni Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Robert M Sutton; Benjamin French; Dana E Niles; Aaron Donoghue; Alexis A Topjian; Akira Nishisaki; Jessica Leffelman; Heather Wolfe; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni; Peter A Meaney Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Heather Wolfe; Matthew R Maltese; Dana E Niles; Elizabeth Fischman; Veronika Legkobitova; Jessica Leffelman; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert M Sutton Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Maya Dewan; Naveen Muthu; Eric Shelov; Christopher P Bonafide; Patrick Brady; Daniela Davis; Eric S Kirkendall; Dana Niles; Robert M Sutton; Danielle Traynor; Ken Tegtmeyer; Vinay Nadkarni; Heather Wolfe Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Robert M Sutton; Benjamin French; Akira Nishisaki; Dana E Niles; Matthew R Maltese; Lori Boyle; Mette Stavland; Joar Eilevstjønn; Kristy B Arbogast; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 5.262