Abstract 12173: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Self-instruction and Traditional Instruction in Training of Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Abstract

Introduction: Self-instruction of learning cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) saves manpower and may be applied in large-scale public training, but its effect comparing to traditional instruction remains unclear. Hypothesis: In bystander CPR training, self-instruction compared to traditional instruction, has different post-training performances. Methods: In this randomized controlled study, administrative clerks and other non-health care providers were randomly allocated into 2 groups: self-instruction group and traditional instruction group. Both groups watched a 27-minute standardized teaching video. Participants in the self-instruction group then performed a 30-minute hands-on practice on Resusci Anne® QCPR (Laerdal company, Norway) with automated feedback, while participants in the traditional instruction group performed the same duration of practice on manikins with feedback by the instructors aside. Both groups had to receive skill tests before and after practice. Blinded evaluators used checklists to decide whether participants passed the tests by reviewing the videos of the skill tests. Data of skill performance was also collected using SkillReporter® software. The primary outcome was the pass rate. The secondary outcomes were items of individual skill performances. Results: Totally sixty-four participants were randomly allocated. All participants completed the protocol. The baseline characteristics of 2 groups were no different. In the primary outcome, the pass rates were the same between 2 groups (94% vs 94%, p=1.00). In the secondary outcomes, the self-instruction group performed better in mean compression depth (48.4 vs 42.0 mm, p=0.002), mean percentage of full chest recoils (77.7% vs 56.4%, p=0.014) and mean percentage of correct ventilation volume (96.5% vs 75.1%, p=0.013), but performed worse in confirming environmental safety (47% vs 78%, p=0.010) and checking normal breathing (26% vs 97%, p<0.001). Conclusions: Bystander CPR training using self-instruction was no different from traditional instruction in pass rate, and even better in some skill performances, but confirmation of environmental safety and check of normal breathing before starting CPR should be emphasized in self-instruction training.