Literature DB >> 29605787

Basic life support and external defibrillation competences after instruction and at 6 months comparing face-to-face and blended training. Randomised trial.

Jordi Castillo1, Aberto Gallart2, Encarnación Rodríguez3, Jorge Castillo4, Carmen Gomar5.   

Abstract

AIM OF THE STUDY: The objective of this study was to compare the immediate and 6-month efficacy of basic life support (BLS) and automatic external defibrillation (AED) training using standard or blended methods.
METHODS: First-year students of medicine and nursing (n = 129) were randomly assigned to a control group (face-to-face training based on the European Resuscitation Council [ERC] Guidelines) or to an experimental group that trained with a self-training video, a new website, a Moodle platform, an intelligent manikin, and 45 min of instructor presence. Both groups were homogeneous and were evaluated identically. Theoretical knowledge was evaluated using a multi-choice questionnaire (MCQ). Skill performance was evaluated by the instructor's rubric and on a high-fidelity Resusci Anne QCPR manikin.
RESULTS: Immediately after the course, there were no statistically significant differences in knowledge between the two groups. The median score of practical evaluation assessed by the instructor was significantly better in the experimental group (8.15, SD 0.93 vs 7.7, SD 1.18; P = 0.02). No differences between groups were found when using a high-fidelity manikin to evaluate chest compressions and lung inflations. At six months, the scores in knowledge and skill performance were significantly lower compared to the evaluations at the end of the instruction, but they remained still higher compared to baseline. The experimental group had higher scores in practical skills evaluated by the instructor than the control group (7.44, SD 1.85 vs 6.10, SD 2.6; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The blended method provides the same or even higher levels of knowledge and skills than standard instruction both immediately after the course and six months later.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blended training; Cardiac arrest; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Education

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29605787     DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.03.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nurse Educ Today        ISSN: 0260-6917            Impact factor:   3.442


  6 in total

Review 1.  Blended learning for accredited life support courses - A systematic review.

Authors:  M Elgohary; F S Palazzo; J Breckwoldt; A Cheng; J Pellegrino; S Schnaubelt; R Greif; A Lockey
Journal:  Resusc Plus       Date:  2022-05-10

2.  [Comparison between unidisciplinary or interdisciplinary acquisition of competencies in basic life support. Quasi-experimental study].

Authors:  Jordi Castillo Garcia; Mireia Llauradó Serra; Anna Aliberch Raurell; Encarnación Rodriguez Higueras
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2020-04-25       Impact factor: 1.137

3.  Basic Life-Support Learning in Undergraduate Students of Sports Sciences: Efficacy of 150 Minutes of Training and Retention after Eight Months.

Authors:  Silvia Aranda-García; Ernesto Herrera-Pedroviejo; Cristian Abelairas-Gómez
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Changes of knowledge and practical skills before and after retraining for basic life support: Focused on students of Dental School.

Authors:  Seo-Yoon Kim; Dongmin Shin; Hyun Jeong Kim; Myong-Hwan Karm
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 3.738

5.  Methodology of Specialist Physicians Training: From Traditional to e-Learning.

Authors:  Juan Chaves; Antonio A Lorca-Marín; Emilio José Delgado-Algarra
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 6.  Shock to the Heart: Psychosocial Implications and Applications of Sudden Cardiac Death in the Young.

Authors:  Nicholas Grubic; Jake Puskas; Dermot Phelan; Anne Fournier; Luc J Martin; Amer M Johri
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 3.955

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.