OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of brief bedside cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training to improve the skill retention of hospital-based pediatric providers. We hypothesized that a low-dose, high-frequency training program (booster training) would improve CPR skill retention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CPR recording/feedback defibrillators were used to evaluate CPR quality during simulated arrest. Basic life support-certified, hospital-based providers were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 study arms: (1) instructor-only training; (2) automated defibrillator feedback only; (3) instructor training combined with automated feedback; and (4) control (no structured training). Each session (time: 0, 1, 3, and 6 months after training) consisted of a pretraining evaluation (60 seconds), booster training (120 seconds), and a posttraining evaluation (60 seconds). Excellent CPR was defined as chest compression (CC) depth ≥ one-third anterior-posterior chest depth, rate ≥90 and ≤120 CC per minute, ≤20% of CCs with incomplete release (>2500 g), and no flow fraction ≤ 0.30. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Eighty-nine providers were randomly assigned; 74 (83%) completed all sessions. Retention of CPR skills was 2.3 times (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-4.5; P=.02) more likely after 2 trainings and 2.9 times (95% CI: 1.4-6.2; P=.005) more likely after 3 trainings. The automated defibrillator feedback only group had lower retention rates compared with the instructor-only training group (odds ratio: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.17-0.97]; P = .043). CONCLUSIONS:Brief bedside booster CPR training improves CPR skill retention. Our data reveal that instructor-led training improves retention compared with automated feedback training alone. Future studies should investigate whether bedside training improves CPR quality during actual pediatric arrests.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of brief bedside cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training to improve the skill retention of hospital-based pediatric providers. We hypothesized that a low-dose, high-frequency training program (booster training) would improve CPR skill retention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CPR recording/feedback defibrillators were used to evaluate CPR quality during simulated arrest. Basic life support-certified, hospital-based providers were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 study arms: (1) instructor-only training; (2) automated defibrillator feedback only; (3) instructor training combined with automated feedback; and (4) control (no structured training). Each session (time: 0, 1, 3, and 6 months after training) consisted of a pretraining evaluation (60 seconds), booster training (120 seconds), and a posttraining evaluation (60 seconds). Excellent CPR was defined as chest compression (CC) depth ≥ one-third anterior-posterior chest depth, rate ≥90 and ≤120 CC per minute, ≤20% of CCs with incomplete release (>2500 g), and no flow fraction ≤ 0.30. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-nine providers were randomly assigned; 74 (83%) completed all sessions. Retention of CPR skills was 2.3 times (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-4.5; P=.02) more likely after 2 trainings and 2.9 times (95% CI: 1.4-6.2; P=.005) more likely after 3 trainings. The automated defibrillator feedback only group had lower retention rates compared with the instructor-only training group (odds ratio: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.17-0.97]; P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: Brief bedside booster CPR training improves CPR skill retention. Our data reveal that instructor-led training improves retention compared with automated feedback training alone. Future studies should investigate whether bedside training improves CPR quality during actual pediatric arrests.
Authors: Vinay M Nadkarni; Gregory Luke Larkin; Mary Ann Peberdy; Scott M Carey; William Kaye; Mary E Mancini; Graham Nichol; Tanya Lane-Truitt; Jerry Potts; Joseph P Ornato; Robert A Berg Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-01-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Benjamin S Abella; Nathan Sandbo; Peter Vassilatos; Jason P Alvarado; Nicholas O'Hearn; Herbert N Wigder; Paul Hoffman; Kathleen Tynus; Terry L Vanden Hoek; Lance B Becker Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Aaron J Donoghue; Vinay Nadkarni; Robert A Berg; Martin H Osmond; George Wells; Lisa Nesbitt; Ian G Stiell Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 5.721
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: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Arshia Khorasani-Zadeh; Lauren E Krowl; Amit K Chowdhry; Paris Hantzidiamantis; Konstantino Hantzidiamantis; Rosalie Siciliano; Matthew A Grover; Amit S Dhamoon Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2020-08-24
Authors: Robert M Sutton; Dana Niles; Benjamin French; Matthew R Maltese; Jessica Leffelman; Joar Eilevstjønn; Heather Wolfe; Akira Nishisaki; Peter A Meaney; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 5.262
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