OBJECTIVE: Basic life support (BLS) by laypersons is essential for surviving sudden cardiac death in the community. The present study investigates BLS skill knowledge of German laypersons in a public community place and examines the effect of the interval between the last BLS course and present skills in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). METHODS: Participants were randomly recruited at a public place in a medium-sized German town. Volunteers were confronted with a fictitious cardiac arrest situation using a BLS training manikin and were asked to help. Using a standardised evaluation sheet, measures were documented. Participants' demographic data were evaluated after completion of the scenario. RESULTS: None of the participants (n=89; male=42, female=47) followed the current BLS algorithm correctly; independent from the last CPR course was attended. Most steps were performed in random order. 43% (n=38) of participants checked for responsiveness, 65% (n=58) performed chest compressions, and 63% (n=56) delivered rescue breathing. 10% (n=9) of participants were unable to name a national emergency telephone number. Laypersons who attended a BLS course more than 10 years ago showed a significant lack of BLS knowledge and failed more often to deliver chest compressions and rescue breathing. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that current CPR guidelines for BLS are not followed by laypersons in a medium-sized town in Germany. These data suggest that CPR refresher courses as well as implication of BLS guidelines in daily life are warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Basic life support (BLS) by laypersons is essential for surviving sudden cardiac death in the community. The present study investigates BLS skill knowledge of German laypersons in a public community place and examines the effect of the interval between the last BLS course and present skills in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). METHODS:Participants were randomly recruited at a public place in a medium-sized German town. Volunteers were confronted with a fictitious cardiac arrest situation using a BLS training manikin and were asked to help. Using a standardised evaluation sheet, measures were documented. Participants' demographic data were evaluated after completion of the scenario. RESULTS: None of the participants (n=89; male=42, female=47) followed the current BLS algorithm correctly; independent from the last CPR course was attended. Most steps were performed in random order. 43% (n=38) of participants checked for responsiveness, 65% (n=58) performed chest compressions, and 63% (n=56) delivered rescue breathing. 10% (n=9) of participants were unable to name a national emergency telephone number. Laypersons who attended a BLS course more than 10 years ago showed a significant lack of BLS knowledge and failed more often to deliver chest compressions and rescue breathing. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that current CPR guidelines for BLS are not followed by laypersons in a medium-sized town in Germany. These data suggest that CPR refresher courses as well as implication of BLS guidelines in daily life are warranted.
Authors: Stephen Magura; Michael G Miller; Timothy Michael; Robert Bensley; Jason T Burkhardt; Anne Cullen Puente; Carolyn Sullins Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2012-11-21