Measuring the effectiveness of a novel CPRcard™ feedback device during simulated chest compressions by non-healthcare workers.

INTRODUCTION: There is a need for a simple-to-use and easy-to-carry CPR feedback device for laypersons. We aimed to determine if a novel CPRcard™ feedback device improved the quality of chest compressions.
METHODS: We compared participants' chest compression rate and depth with and without feedback. Compression data was captured through the CPRcard™ or Resusci Anne's SimPad® SkillReporter™. Compression quality was defined based on 2010 international guidelines for rate, depth and flow fraction.
RESULTS: Overall, the CPRcard group achieved a better median compression rate (CPRcard 117 vs. control 122, p = 0.001) and proportion of compressions within the adequate rate range (CPRcard 83% vs. control 47%, p < 0.001). Compared to the no-card and blinded-card groups, the CPRcard group had a higher proportion of adequate compression rate (CPRcard 88% vs. no-card 46.8%, p = 0.037; CPRcard 73% vs. blinded-card 43%, p = 0.003). Proportion of compressions with adequate depth was similar in all groups (CPRcard 52% vs. control 48%, p = 0.957). The CPRcard group more often met targets for compression rate of 100-120/min and depth of at least 5 cm (CPRcard 36% vs. control 4%, p = 0.022). Chest compression flow fraction rate was similar but not statistically significant in all groups (92%, p = 1.0). Respondents using the CPRcard expressed higher confidence (mean 2.7 ± 2.4; 1 = very confident, 10 = not confident).
CONCLUSION: Use of the CPRcard by non-healthcare workers in simulated resuscitation improved the quality of chest compressions, thus boosting user confidence in performing compressions. Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association