Debra G Heard1, Kevin H Andresen2, Katie M Guthmiller2, Ryan Lucas3, Kennon J Heard4, Audrey L Blewer5, Benjamin S Abella5, Lana M Gent6, Comilla Sasson7. 1. American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Dallas, TX. Electronic address: t-debbie.heard@heart.org. 2. American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Dallas, TX; Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO. 3. American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Dallas, TX; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine and Center for Resuscitation Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 6. American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Dallas, TX. 7. American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Dallas, TX; Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO; Rocky Mountain Regional Center, Aurora, CO.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare 3 methods of hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education, using performance scores. A paucity of research exists on the comparative effectiveness of different types of hands-only CPR education. This study also includes a novel kiosk approach that has not previously been studied, to our knowledge. METHODS: A randomized, controlled study compared participant scores on 4 hands-only CPR outcome measures after education with a 25- to 45-minute practice-while-watching classroom session (classroom), 4-minute on-screen feedback and practice session (kiosk), and 1-minute video viewing (video only). Participants took a 30-second compression test after initial training and again after 3 months. RESULTS: After the initial education session, the video-only group had a lower total score (compressions correct on hand placement, rate, and depth) (-9.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] -16.5 to -3.0) than the classroom group. There were no significant differences on total score between classroom and kiosk participants. Additional outcome scores help explain which components negatively affect total score for each education method. The video-only group had lower compression depth scores (-9.9; 95% CI -14.0 to -5.7) than the classroom group. The kiosk group outperformed the classroom group on hand position score (4.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 8.6) but scored lower on compression depth score (-5.6; 95% CI -9.5 to -1.8). The change in 4 outcome variables was not significantly different across education type at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Participants exposed to the kiosk session and those exposed to classroom education performed hands-only CPR similarly, and both groups showed skill performance superior to that of participants watching only a video. With regular retraining to prevent skills decay, the efficient and free hands-only CPR training kiosk has the potential to increase bystander intervention and improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare 3 methods of hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education, using performance scores. A paucity of research exists on the comparative effectiveness of different types of hands-only CPR education. This study also includes a novel kiosk approach that has not previously been studied, to our knowledge. METHODS: A randomized, controlled study compared participant scores on 4 hands-only CPR outcome measures after education with a 25- to 45-minute practice-while-watching classroom session (classroom), 4-minute on-screen feedback and practice session (kiosk), and 1-minute video viewing (video only). Participants took a 30-second compression test after initial training and again after 3 months. RESULTS: After the initial education session, the video-only group had a lower total score (compressions correct on hand placement, rate, and depth) (-9.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] -16.5 to -3.0) than the classroom group. There were no significant differences on total score between classroom and kiosk participants. Additional outcome scores help explain which components negatively affect total score for each education method. The video-only group had lower compression depth scores (-9.9; 95% CI -14.0 to -5.7) than the classroom group. The kiosk group outperformed the classroom group on hand position score (4.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 8.6) but scored lower on compression depth score (-5.6; 95% CI -9.5 to -1.8). The change in 4 outcome variables was not significantly different across education type at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION:Participants exposed to the kiosk session and those exposed to classroom education performed hands-only CPR similarly, and both groups showed skill performance superior to that of participants watching only a video. With regular retraining to prevent skills decay, the efficient and free hands-only CPR training kiosk has the potential to increase bystander intervention and improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Authors: Myra H Wyckoff; Eunice M Singletary; Jasmeet Soar; Theresa M Olasveengen; Robert Greif; Helen G Liley; David Zideman; Farhan Bhanji; Lars W Andersen; Suzanne R Avis; Khalid Aziz; Jason C Bendall; David C Berry; Vere Borra; Bernd W Böttiger; Richard Bradley; Janet E Bray; Jan Breckwoldt; Jestin N Carlson; Pascal Cassan; Maaret Castrén; Wei-Tien Chang; Nathan P Charlton; Adam Cheng; Sung Phil Chung; Julie Considine; Daniela T Costa-Nobre; Keith Couper; Katie N Dainty; Peter G Davis; Maria Fernanda de Almeida; Allan R de Caen; Edison F de Paiva; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Matthew J Douma; Ian R Drennan; Jonathan P Duff; Kathryn J Eastwood; Walid El-Naggar; Jonathan L Epstein; Raffo Escalante; Jorge G Fabres; Joe Fawke; Judith C Finn; Elizabeth E Foglia; Fredrik Folke; Karoline Freeman; Elaine Gilfoyle; Craig A Goolsby; Amy Grove; Ruth Guinsburg; Tetsuo Hatanaka; Mary Fran Hazinski; George S Heriot; Karen G Hirsch; Mathias J Holmberg; Shigeharu Hosono; Ming-Ju Hsieh; Kevin K C Hung; Cindy H Hsu; Takanari Ikeyama; Tetsuya Isayama; Vishal S Kapadia; Mandira Daripa Kawakami; Han-Suk Kim; David A Kloeck; Peter J Kudenchuk; Anthony T Lagina; Kasper G Lauridsen; Eric J Lavonas; Andrew S Lockey; Carolina Malta Hansen; David Markenson; Tasuku Matsuyama; Christopher J D McKinlay; Amin Mehrabian; Raina M Merchant; Daniel Meyran; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Kevin J Nation; Michael Nemeth; Robert W Neumar; Tonia Nicholson; Susan Niermeyer; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Chika Nishiyama; Brian J O'Neil; Aaron M Orkin; Osokogu Osemeke; Michael J Parr; Catherine Patocka; Jeffrey L Pellegrino; Gavin D Perkins; Jeffrey M Perlman; Yacov Rabi; Joshua C Reynolds; Giuseppe Ristagno; Charles C Roehr; Tetsuya Sakamoto; Claudio Sandroni; Taylor Sawyer; Georg M Schmölzer; Sebastian Schnaubelt; Federico Semeraro; Markus B Skrifvars; Christopher M Smith; Michael A Smyth; Roger F Soll; Takahiro Sugiura; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Daniele Trevisanuto; Christian Vaillancourt; Tzong-Luen Wang; Gary M Weiner; Michelle Welsford; Jane Wigginton; Jonathan P Wyllie; Joyce Yeung; Jerry P Nolan; Katherine M Berg Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Daniyal Mansoor Ali; Butool Hisam; Natasha Shaukat; Noor Baig; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Jonathan L Epstein; Eric Goralnick; Paul D Kivela; Bryan McNally; Junaid Razzak Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Travis W Murphy; Scott A Cohen; K Leslie Avery; Meenakshi P Balakrishnan; Ramani Balu; Muhammad Abdul Baker Chowdhury; David B Crabb; Karl W Huesgen; Charles W Hwang; Carolina B Maciel; Sarah S Gul; Francis Han; Torben K Becker Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2020-11-04