Saša Sopka1,2, Fabian Hahn1, Lina Vogt1,2, Kim Hannah Pears1, Rolf Rossaint2, Jenny Rudolph3, Martin Klasen1. 1. Medical Faculty, AIXTRA-Competency Center for Training and Patient Safety, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. 2. Medical Faculty, Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Aachen, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. 3. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Training Basic Life Support saves lives. However, current BLS training approaches are time-consuming and costly. Alternative cost-efficient and effective training methods are highly needed. The present study evaluated whether a video-feedback supported peer-guided Basic Life Support training approach achieves similar practical performance as a standard instructor-guided training in laypersons. METHODS: In a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, 288 first-year medical students were randomized to two study arms with different Basic Life Support training methods: 1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) or 2) a Peer Video Feedback (PVF). Outcome parameters were objective data for Basic Life Support performance (compression depth and rate) from a resuscitation manikin with recording software as well as overall Basic Life Support performance and subjective confidence. Non-inferiority margins (Δ) for these outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with Standard Instructor Feedback. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority. RESULTS: Results confirmed non-inferiority of Peer Video Feedback to Standard Instructor Feedback for compression depth (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 2.9%; 95% CI: -8.2% to 14.1%; Δ = -19%), overall Basic Life Support performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 6.7%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 14.3%; Δ = -27%) and subjective confidence for CPR performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.18-0.17; Δ = -0.5) and emergency situations (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.21-0.18; Δ = -0.5). Results for compression rate were inconclusive. DISCUSSION: Peer Video Feedback achieves comparable results as standard instructor-based training methods. It is an easy-to-apply and cost-efficient alternative to standard Basic Life Support training methods. To improve performance with respect to compression rate, additional implementation of a metronome is recommended.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Training Basic Life Support saves lives. However, current BLS training approaches are time-consuming and costly. Alternative cost-efficient and effective training methods are highly needed. The present study evaluated whether a video-feedback supported peer-guided Basic Life Support training approach achieves similar practical performance as a standard instructor-guided training in laypersons. METHODS: In a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, 288 first-year medical students were randomized to two study arms with different Basic Life Support training methods: 1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) or 2) a Peer Video Feedback (PVF). Outcome parameters were objective data for Basic Life Support performance (compression depth and rate) from a resuscitation manikin with recording software as well as overall Basic Life Support performance and subjective confidence. Non-inferiority margins (Δ) for these outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with Standard Instructor Feedback. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority. RESULTS: Results confirmed non-inferiority of Peer Video Feedback to Standard Instructor Feedback for compression depth (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 2.9%; 95% CI: -8.2% to 14.1%; Δ = -19%), overall Basic Life Support performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 6.7%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 14.3%; Δ = -27%) and subjective confidence for CPR performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.18-0.17; Δ = -0.5) and emergency situations (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.21-0.18; Δ = -0.5). Results for compression rate were inconclusive. DISCUSSION: Peer Video Feedback achieves comparable results as standard instructor-based training methods. It is an easy-to-apply and cost-efficient alternative to standard Basic Life Support training methods. To improve performance with respect to compression rate, additional implementation of a metronome is recommended.
Authors: Gyu Chong Cho; You Dong Sohn; Ku Hyun Kang; Won Woong Lee; Kyung Soo Lim; Won Kim; Bum Jin Oh; Dai Hai Choi; Seok Ran Yeom; Hoon Lim Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Olle Ten Cate; Huiju Carrie Chen; Reinier G Hoff; Harm Peters; Harold Bok; Marieke van der Schaaf Journal: Med Teach Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.650
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: Resuscitation Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Kimberly Lomis; Jonathan M Amiel; Michael S Ryan; Karin Esposito; Michael Green; Alex Stagnaro-Green; Janet Bull; George C Mejicano Journal: Acad Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Christopher X Wong; Alex Brown; Dennis H Lau; Sumeet S Chugh; Christine M Albert; Jonathan M Kalman; Prashanthan Sanders Journal: Heart Lung Circ Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 2.975
Authors: Robert Greif; Farhan Bhanji; Blair L Bigham; Janet Bray; Jan Breckwoldt; Adam Cheng; Jonathan P Duff; Elaine Gilfoyle; Ming-Ju Hsieh; Taku Iwami; Kasper G Lauridsen; Andrew S Lockey; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma; Koenraad G Monsieurs; Deems Okamoto; Jeffrey L Pellegrino; Joyce Yeung; Judith C Finn Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 29.690