European Resuscitation Council Basic Life Research Articles

Assessment of breathing in cardiac arrest: a randomised controlled trial of three teaching methods among laypersons

BackgroundThe aim of this trial was to compare a video- and a simulation-based teaching method to the conventional lecture-based method, hypothesizing that the video- and simulation-based teaching methods would lead to improved recognition of breathing patterns during cardiac arrest.MethodsIn this Danish, investigator-initiated, stratified, randomised controlled trial, adult laypersons (university students, military conscripts and elderly retirees) participating in European Resuscitation Council Basic Life Support courses were randomised to receive teaching on how to recognise breathing patterns using a lecture- (usual practice), a video-, or a simulation-based teaching method. The primary outcome was recognition of breathing patterns in nine videos of actors simulating normal breathing, no breathing, and agonal breathing (three of each). We analysed outcomes using logistic regression models and present results as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values from likelihood ratio tests.ResultsOne hundred fifty-three participants were included in the analyses from February 2, 2018 through May 21, 2019 and recognition of breathing patterns was statistically significantly different between the teaching methods (P = 0.013). Compared to lecture-based teaching (83% correct answers), both video- (90% correct answers; OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.19–2.64) and simulation-based teaching (88% correct answers; OR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.01–2.17) led to significantly more correct answers. Video-based teaching was not statistically significantly different compared to simulation-based teaching (OR 1.20; 95% CI: 0.78–1.83).ConclusionVideo- and simulation-based teaching methods led to improved recognition of breathing patterns among laypersons participating in adult Basic Life Support courses compared to the conventional lecture-based teaching method.

Comparing Basic Life Support Serious Gaming Scores With Hands-on Training Platform Performance Scores: Pilot Simulation Study for Basic Life Support Training.

BackgroundSerious games enrich simulation-based health care trainings and improve knowledge, skills, and self-confidence of learners while entertaining them.ObjectiveA platform which can combine performance data from a basic life support (BLS) serious game app and hands-on data based on the same scoring system is not available in the market. The aim of this study was to create such a platform and investigate whether performance evaluation of BLS trainings would be more objective compared to conventional Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) examinations if these evaluations were carried out with the platform which combines OSCE scoring criteria with sensor data retrieved from the simulator’s sensors.MethodsParticipants were 25 volunteers (11 men [44.0%] and 14 [56.0] women) among Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University students without prior knowledge of the BLS protocol. A serious game module has been created for teaching learners the European Resuscitation Council Basic Life Support 2015 protocol. A second module called the hands-on module was designed for educators. This module includes a checklist used for BLS OSCE examinations and can retrieve sensor data such as compression depth, compression frequency, and ventilation volume from the manikin (CPR Lilly; 3B Scientific GmbH) via Bluetooth. Data retrieved from the sensors of the manikin enable educators to evaluate learners in a more objective way. Performance data retrieved from the serious gaming module have been combined with the results of the hands-on module. Data acquired from the hands-on module have also been compared with the results of conventional OSCE scores of the participants, which were obtained by watching the videos of the same trainings.ResultsParticipants were considered successful in the game if they scored 80/100 or above. Overall, participants scored 80 or above in an average of 1.4 (SD 0.65) trials. The average BLS serious game score was 88.3/100 (SD 5.17) and hands-on average score was 70.7/100 (SD 17.3), whereas the OSCE average score was 84.4/100 (SD 12.9). There was no statistically significant correlation between success on trials (score ≥80/100), serious game, hands-on training app, and OSCE scores (Spearman rho test, P>.05). The mean BLS serious game score of the participants was 88.3/100 (SD 5.17), whereas their mean hands-on training app score was 70.7/100 (SD 17.3) and OSCE score was 84.4/100 (SD 12.9).ConclusionsAlthough scoring criteria for OSCE and hands-on training app were identical, OSCE scores were 17% higher than hands-on training app scores. After analyzing the difference of scores between hands-on training app and OSCE, it has been revealed that these differences originate from scoring parameters such as compression depth, compression frequency, and ventilation volume. These data suggest that evaluation of BLS trainings would be more objective if these evaluations were carried out with the modality, which combines visual OSCE scoring criteria with sensor data retrieved from the simulator’s sensors.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04533893; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04533893

The effectiveness of European Resuscitation Council Basic Life Support training with the use of audiovisual feedback and E-learning

Purpose of study: This study is aimed to assess the effectiveness of E-learning and European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Basic Life Support (BLS) training with audiovisual feedback (AVF) for acquiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills.

Successful implementation of the European Resuscitation Council basic life support course as mandatory peer-led training for medical students

We aimed to implement the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) basic life support (BLS) and automated external defibrillator (AED) course as a mandatory peer-led training programme for medical students and to evaluate the satisfaction with this course. Medical students certified as ERC BLS/AED instructors were recruited as student trainers and organizers of the course, which was included as a mandatory part of the curriculum for second-year medical students before first clinical rotation. After each course, questionnaires were distributed to evaluate the peer-led training programme. In total, 146 students were trained and assessed. The quality of the course was rated as 9.4±0.8 (10-point scale, 10 being best), and the majority (95%) felt better prepared for their clinical rotation. Implementation of the ERC BLS/AED course as a mandatory peer-led training programme for medical students is feasible. The course has been very well accepted and the students feel better prepared for their first clinical rotation.

Duration of Ventilations During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation by Lay Rescuers and First Responders

Background— The 2010 guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation allow 5 seconds to give 2 breaths to deliver sufficient chest compressions and to keep perfusion pressure high. This study aims to determine whether the recommended short interruption for ventilations by trained lay rescuers and first responders can be achieved and to evaluate its consequence for chest compressions and survival. Methods and Results— From a prospective data collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, we used automatic external defibrillator recordings of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by rescuers who had received a standard European Resuscitation Council basic life support and automatic external defibrillator course. Ventilation periods and total compressions delivered per minute during each 2 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation cycle were measured, and the chest compression fraction was calculated. Neurological intact survival to discharge was studied in relation to these factors and covariates. We included 199 automatic external defibrillator recordings. The median interruption time for 2 ventilations was 7 seconds (25th–75th percentile, 6–9 seconds). Of all rescuers, 21% took <5 seconds and 83% took <10 seconds for a ventilation period; 97%, 88%, and 63% of rescuers were able to deliver >60, >70, and >80 chest compressions per minute, respectively. The median chest compression fraction was 65% (25th–75th percentile, 59%–71%). Survival was 25% (49 of 199), not associated with long or short ventilation pauses when controlled for covariates. Conclusions— The great majority of rescuers can give 2 rescue breaths in <10 seconds and deliver at least 70 compressions in a minute. Longer pauses for ventilations are not associated with worse outcome. Guidelines may allow longer pauses for ventilations with no detriment to survival.