| Literature DB >> 34223390 |
Robert Ohle1, Marika Moskalyk2, Eve Boissonneault3, Asma Bilgasem4, Ellie Tissot4, Sarah McIsaac5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies demonstrate that feedback devices help students achieve mastery of critical CPR skills and shorten the time from demonstration to competence. CPR feedback devices are costly and may not be available in low resource settings or in the context of online classes. We have developed a homemade feedback enabled CPR trainer. This trainer consists of a lid with two toilet rolls stacked on top. We have shown it is feasible to generate high quality CPR using this trainer, however the ability for this trainer to successfully be used in skill acquisition is unknown.Our main objective was to assess if learning CPR on a homemade toilet paper trainer was non-inferior to a commercially available mannequin when comparing post-training CPR scores.Entities:
Keywords: Compression-only CPR; Homemade CPR trainer; Remote learning
Year: 2021 PMID: 34223390 PMCID: PMC8244444 DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100134
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Resusc Plus ISSN: 2666-5204
Fig. 1Example of toilet paper trainer.
(a) Complete compression (5 cm) is demonstrated by full compression of the toilet paper inner tubes and click of the jar lid. (b) Full recoil is demonstrated by re expansion of the inner tubes. Note: the inner tubes only re-expand to an elliptical shape; they will not re-expand to a circle.
Fig. 2Consort statement flow diagram of patient enrolment, allocation, follow up and analysis.
Characteristics of included participants.
| Toilet paper trainer (n = 64) | Commercial mannequin trainer (n = 61) | |
|---|---|---|
| Female | 33 (51.7) | 25 (41) |
| Height (cm, SD) | 170 (13.7) | 171 (10.2) |
| Weight (kg, SD) | 70.7 (15.8) | 69.5 (17.3) |
| Age (years, SD) | 28.2 (14) | 24 (11) |
| Previous training (n, %) | 22 (34.4) | 17 (27.9) |
| Years since CPR training (years, SD) | 6 (7.8) | 3.5 (4.6) |
| Likely to perform CPR on stranger (n, %) | 35 (54.7) | 31(50.8) |
| Likely to perform CPR on family (n, %) pre training | 46 (71.9) | 41 (67.2) |
| Adequate CPR at the end of training (n, %) | ||
| Depth (n, %) | 61 (95.3) | 52 (85.2) |
| Rate (n, %) | 56 (87.5) | 54 (88.5) |
| Recoil (n, %) | 38 (59.4) | 44 (72.1) |
Comparison of outcomes between participants trained on the toilet paper versus the commercial mannequin.
| Toilet paper trainer (n = 64) | Commercial mannequin trainer (n = 61) | |
|---|---|---|
| Mean overall CPR scores | 82 (15.9) | 84 (15) |
| Achieved a score >70% | 52 (81.2) | 52 (85.2 |
| Accurately predict a score of >70% | 57 (89) | 53 (86.9) |
| Post training willing to perform CPR on a stranger | 53 (82.8) | 48 (78.7) |
| Post training willing to perform CPR on a family member | 58 (90.6) | 56 (91.8) |
CPR = cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Fig. 3Forest plot of non-inferiority of toilet paper trainer vs. commercial mannequin trainer. There was an absolute difference of −2% (95% CI 7.4 to 3.4) in the average CPR score. The non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in average CPR scores is denoted by the dashed line.