评估新型CPRcard™反馈设备在非医护人员模拟胸外按压过程中的有效性。
Measuring the effectiveness of a novel CPRcard™ feedback device during simulated chest compressions by non-healthcare workers.
作者信息
White Alexander E, Ng Han Xian, Ng Wai Yee, Ng Eileen Kai Xin, Fook-Chong Stephanie, Kua Phek Hui Jade, Ong Marcus Eng Hock
机构信息
Unit for Prehospital Emergency Care, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, United Kingdom.
出版信息
Singapore Med J. 2017 Jul;58(7):438-445. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2017072.
INTRODUCTION
There is a need for a simple-to-use and easy-to-carry CPR feedback device for laypersons. We aimed to determine if a novel CPRcard™ feedback device improved the quality of chest compressions.
METHODS
We compared participants' chest compression rate and depth with and without feedback. Compression data was captured through the CPRcard™ or Resusci Anne's SimPad® SkillReporter™. Compression quality was defined based on 2010 international guidelines for rate, depth and flow fraction.
RESULTS
Overall, the CPRcard group achieved a better median compression rate (CPRcard 117 vs. control 122, p = 0.001) and proportion of compressions within the adequate rate range (CPRcard 83% vs. control 47%, p < 0.001). Compared to the no-card and blinded-card groups, the CPRcard group had a higher proportion of adequate compression rate (CPRcard 88% vs. no-card 46.8%, p = 0.037; CPRcard 73% vs. blinded-card 43%, p = 0.003). Proportion of compressions with adequate depth was similar in all groups (CPRcard 52% vs. control 48%, p = 0.957). The CPRcard group more often met targets for compression rate of 100-120/min and depth of at least 5 cm (CPRcard 36% vs. control 4%, p = 0.022). Chest compression flow fraction rate was similar but not statistically significant in all groups (92%, p = 1.0). Respondents using the CPRcard expressed higher confidence (mean 2.7 ± 2.4; 1 = very confident, 10 = not confident).
CONCLUSION
Use of the CPRcard by non-healthcare workers in simulated resuscitation improved the quality of chest compressions, thus boosting user confidence in performing compressions.
引言
需要一种供非专业人员使用且便于携带的心肺复苏（CPR）反馈设备。我们旨在确定新型CPRcard™反馈设备是否能提高胸外按压质量。
方法
我们比较了有反馈和无反馈情况下参与者的胸外按压速率和深度。通过CPRcard™或复苏安妮的SimPad® SkillReporter™采集按压数据。按压质量根据2010年国际关于速率、深度和血流分数的指南来定义。
结果
总体而言，CPRcard组的中位按压速率更佳（CPRcard组为117次/分钟，对照组为122次/分钟，p = 0.001），且在适当速率范围内的按压比例更高（CPRcard组为83%，对照组为47%，p < 0.001）。与无卡片组和盲卡片组相比，CPRcard组有更高比例的适当按压速率（CPRcard组为88%，无卡片组为46.8%，p = 0.037；CPRcard组为73%，盲卡片组为43%，p = 0.003）。所有组中具有适当深度的按压比例相似（CPRcard组为52%，对照组为48%，p = 0.957）。CPRcard组更常达到100 - 120次/分钟的按压速率和至少5厘米深度的目标（CPRcard组为36%，对照组为4%，p = 0.022）。所有组的胸外按压血流分数速率相似，但无统计学意义（92%，p = 1.0）。使用CPRcard的受访者表现出更高的信心（平均2.7 ± 2.4；1 = 非常有信心，10 = 没有信心）。
结论
非医护人员在模拟复苏中使用CPRcard可提高胸外按压质量，从而增强使用者进行按压的信心。
Zotero 插件