Elizabeth A Hunt1, Jordan M Duval-Arnould2, Nnenna O Chime3, Kareen Jones4, Michael Rosen3, Merona Hollingsworth5, Deborah Aksamit6, Marida Twilley6, Cheryl Camacho7, Daniel P Nogee8, Julianna Jung9, Kristen Nelson-McMillan10, Nicole Shilkofski10, Julianne S Perretta11. 1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Division of Health Sciences Informatics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Electronic address: ehunt@jhmi.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Division of Health Sciences Informatics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA; Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, New York, USA. 5. Montefiore Einstein Center for Innovation in Simulation, Bronx, New York, USA. 6. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 7. Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 8. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 9. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Emergency Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 10. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 11. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare resuscitation performance on simulated in-hospital cardiac arrests after traditional American Heart Association (AHA) Healthcare Provider Basic Life Support course (TradBLS) versus revised course including in-hospital skills (HospBLS). DESIGN: This study is a prospective, randomized, controlled curriculum evaluation. SETTING: Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center. SUBJECTS:One hundred twenty-two first year medical students were divided into fifty-nine teams. INTERVENTION: HospBLS course of identical length, containing additional content contextual to hospital environments, taught utilizing Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure during simulated cardiac arrest scenarios was chest compression fraction (CCF) and secondary outcome measures included metrics of high quality resuscitation. MAIN RESULTS: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest HospBLS teams had larger CCF: [69% (65-74) vs. 58% (53-62), p<0.001] and were faster than TradBLS at initiating compressions: [median (IQR): 9s (7-12) vs. 22s (17.5-30.5), p<0.001]. In-hospital cardiac arrest HospBLS teams had larger CCF: [73% (68-75) vs. 50% (43-54), p<0.001] and were faster to initiate compressions: [10s (6-11) vs. 36s (27-63), p<0.001]. All teams utilized the hospital AED to defibrillate within 180s per AHA guidelines [HospBLS: 122s (103-149) vs. TradBLS: 139s (117-172), p=0.09]. HospBLS teams performed more hospital-specific maneuvers to optimize compressions, i.e. utilized: CPR button to flatten bed: [7/30 (23%) vs. 0/29 (0%), p=0.006], backboard: [21/30 (70%) vs. 5/29 (17%), p<0.001], stepstool: [28/30 (93%) vs. 8/29 (28%), p<0.001], lowered bedrails: [28/30 (93%) vs. 10/29 (34%), p<0.001], connected oxygen appropriately: [26/30 (87%) vs. 1/29 (3%), p<0.001] and used oral airway and/or two-person bagging when traditional bag-mask-ventilation unsuccessful: [30/30 (100%) vs. 0/29 (0%), p<0.001]. CONCLUSION: A hospital focused BLS course utilizing RCDP was associated with improved performance on hospital-specific quality measures compared with the traditional AHA course.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare resuscitation performance on simulated in-hospital cardiac arrests after traditional American Heart Association (AHA) Healthcare Provider Basic Life Support course (TradBLS) versus revised course including in-hospital skills (HospBLS). DESIGN: This study is a prospective, randomized, controlled curriculum evaluation. SETTING: Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center. SUBJECTS: One hundred twenty-two first year medical students were divided into fifty-nine teams. INTERVENTION: HospBLS course of identical length, containing additional content contextual to hospital environments, taught utilizing Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure during simulated cardiac arrest scenarios was chest compression fraction (CCF) and secondary outcome measures included metrics of high quality resuscitation. MAIN RESULTS: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest HospBLS teams had larger CCF: [69% (65-74) vs. 58% (53-62), p<0.001] and were faster than TradBLS at initiating compressions: [median (IQR): 9s (7-12) vs. 22s (17.5-30.5), p<0.001]. In-hospital cardiac arrest HospBLS teams had larger CCF: [73% (68-75) vs. 50% (43-54), p<0.001] and were faster to initiate compressions: [10s (6-11) vs. 36s (27-63), p<0.001]. All teams utilized the hospital AED to defibrillate within 180s per AHA guidelines [HospBLS: 122s (103-149) vs. TradBLS: 139s (117-172), p=0.09]. HospBLS teams performed more hospital-specific maneuvers to optimize compressions, i.e. utilized: CPR button to flatten bed: [7/30 (23%) vs. 0/29 (0%), p=0.006], backboard: [21/30 (70%) vs. 5/29 (17%), p<0.001], stepstool: [28/30 (93%) vs. 8/29 (28%), p<0.001], lowered bedrails: [28/30 (93%) vs. 10/29 (34%), p<0.001], connected oxygen appropriately: [26/30 (87%) vs. 1/29 (3%), p<0.001] and used oral airway and/or two-person bagging when traditional bag-mask-ventilation unsuccessful: [30/30 (100%) vs. 0/29 (0%), p<0.001]. CONCLUSION: A hospital focused BLS course utilizing RCDP was associated with improved performance on hospital-specific quality measures compared with the traditional AHA course.
Authors: Daniel S Lemke; Ann L Young; Sharon K Won; Marideth C Rus; Nadia N Villareal; Elizabeth A Camp; Cara Doughty Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-08-01
Authors: Erin E Blanchard; Lee Ann Riesenberg; Lisa B Bergman; Michelle R Brown; Emma C O'Hagan; Shivani J Patel; Tekuila R Carter Journal: Adv Simul (Lond) Date: 2021-05-26
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