Peyton's 4-Steps-Approach in comparison: Medium-term effects on learning external chest compression - a pilot study.

Abstract

Introduction: The external chest compression is a very important skill required to maintain a minimum of circulation during cardiac arrest until further medical procedures can be taken. Peyton’s 4-Steps-Approach is one method of skill training, the four steps being:Demonstration, Deconstruction, Comprehension and Execution. Based on CPR skill training, this method is widely, allegedly predominantly used, although there are insufficient studies on Peyton’s 4-Steps-Approach for skill training in CPR in comparison with other methods of skill training. In our study, we compared the medium- term effects on learning external chest compression with a CPR training device in three different groups: PEY (Peyton’s 4-Steps-Approach), PMOD (Peyton’s 4-Steps-Approach without Step 3) and STDM, the standard model, according to the widely spread method “see one, do one” (this is equal to Peyton’s step 1 and 3).Material and Methods: This prospective and randomised pilot study took place during the summer semester of 2009 at the SkillsLab and Simulation Centre of the University of Cologne (Kölner interprofessionelles Skills Lab und Simulationszentrum - KISS). The subjects were medical students (2nd and 3rd semester). They volunteered for the study and were randomised in three parallel groups, each receiving one of the teaching methods mentioned above. One week and 5/6 months after the intervention, an objective, structured single assessment was taken. Compression rate, compression depth, correct compressions, and the sum of correct checklist items were recorded. Additionally, we compared cumulative percentages between the groups based on the correct implementation of the resuscitation guidelines during that time.Results: The examined sample consisted of 134 subjects (68% female; age 22±4; PEY: n=62; PMOD: n=31; STDM: n=41). There was no difference between the groups concerning age, gender, pre-existing experience in CPR or time of last CPR course. The only significant difference between the groups was the mean compression rate (bpm): Group 1 (PEY) with 99±17 bpm, Group 2 (PMOD) with 101±16 bpm and Group 3 (STDM) with 90±16 bpm (p=0,007 for Group 3 vs. Group 1 and Group 3 vs. Group 2, Mann-Whitney- U-Test). We observed no significant differences between the groups after the second assessment.Conclusion: Our study showed that there are no essential differences in external chest compression during CPR performed by medical students dependent on the teaching method (Peyton vs. “Non-Peyton”) implemented with regard to the medium-term effects. The absence of benefits could possibly be due to the simplicity of external chest compression.