Patrick Wagner1, Christian Lingemann1, Hans-Richard Arntz2, Jan Breckwoldt3. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Intensive Care Medicine, Benjamin Franklin Medical Centre, Charité-Medical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Internal Medicine II (Cardiology and Pulmology), Benjamin Franklin Medical Centre, Charité-Medical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Intensive Care Medicine, Benjamin Franklin Medical Centre, Charité-Medical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Vice Deanery of Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Educating the lay public in basic life support (BLS) is a cornerstone to improving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rates. In Germany, the official rescue organisations deliver accredited courses based on International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) guidelines to up to 1 million participants every year. However, it is unknown how these courses are delivered in reality. We hypothesised that delivered content might not follow the proposed curriculum, and miss recent guideline updates. METHODS: We analysed 20 official lay BLS courses of 240 min (which in Germany are always embedded into either a 1-day or a 2-day first aid course). One expert rated all courses as a participating observer, remaining incognito throughout the course. Teaching times for specific BLS elements were recorded on a standardised checklist. Quality of content was rated by 5-point Likert scales, ranging from -2 (not mentioned) to +2 (well explained). RESULTS: Median total course time was 101 min (range 48-138) for BLS courses if part of a 1-day first aid course, and 123 min (53-244) if part of a 2-day course. Median teaching time for CPR was 51 min (range 20-70) and 60 min (16-138), respectively. Teaching times for recovery position were 44 min (range 24-66) and 55 min (24-114). Quality of content was rated worst for 'agonal gasping' (-1.35) and 'minimising chest compression interruptions' (-1.70). CONCLUSIONS: Observed lay BLS courses lasted only half of the assigned curricular time. Substantial teaching time was spent on non-evidence-based interventions (eg, recovery position), and several important elements of BLS were not included. The findings call for curriculum revision, improved instructor training and systematic quality management. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Educating the lay public in basic life support (BLS) is a cornerstone to improving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rates. In Germany, the official rescue organisations deliver accredited courses based on International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) guidelines to up to 1 million participants every year. However, it is unknown how these courses are delivered in reality. We hypothesised that delivered content might not follow the proposed curriculum, and miss recent guideline updates. METHODS: We analysed 20 official lay BLS courses of 240 min (which in Germany are always embedded into either a 1-day or a 2-day first aid course). One expert rated all courses as a participating observer, remaining incognito throughout the course. Teaching times for specific BLS elements were recorded on a standardised checklist. Quality of content was rated by 5-point Likert scales, ranging from -2 (not mentioned) to +2 (well explained). RESULTS: Median total course time was 101 min (range 48-138) for BLS courses if part of a 1-day first aid course, and 123 min (53-244) if part of a 2-day course. Median teaching time for CPR was 51 min (range 20-70) and 60 min (16-138), respectively. Teaching times for recovery position were 44 min (range 24-66) and 55 min (24-114). Quality of content was rated worst for 'agonal gasping' (-1.35) and 'minimising chest compression interruptions' (-1.70). CONCLUSIONS: Observed lay BLS courses lasted only half of the assigned curricular time. Substantial teaching time was spent on non-evidence-based interventions (eg, recovery position), and several important elements of BLS were not included. The findings call for curriculum revision, improved instructor training and systematic quality management. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Robert Greif; Andrew Lockey; Jan Breckwoldt; Francesc Carmona; Patricia Conaghan; Artem Kuzovlev; Lucas Pflanzl-Knizacek; Ferenc Sari; Salma Shammet; Andrea Scapigliati; Nigel Turner; Joyce Yeung; Koenraad G Monsieurs Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Marc Felzen; Hanna Schröder; Stefan K Beckers; Bernd W Böttiger; Nadine Rott; Ruth Koch-Schultze; Sabine Wingen; Andreas Meißner; Iris Santowski; Olaf Picker; Niels Rahe-Meyer; Rico Dumcke; Claas Wegner; Hugo van Aken; Antje Gottschalk; Oliver Weber; Rolf Rossaint Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 1.041