American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Dallas, TX.
American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Dallas, TX; Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO.
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jun;73(6):599-609. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.09.026. Epub 2018 Nov 12.
We compare 3 methods of hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education, using performance scores. A paucity of research exists on the comparative effectiveness of different types of hands-only CPR education. This study also includes a novel kiosk approach that has not previously been studied, to our knowledge.
A randomized, controlled study compared participant scores on 4 hands-only CPR outcome measures after education with a 25- to 45-minute practice-while-watching classroom session (classroom), 4-minute on-screen feedback and practice session (kiosk), and 1-minute video viewing (video only). Participants took a 30-second compression test after initial training and again after 3 months.
After the initial education session, the video-only group had a lower total score (compressions correct on hand placement, rate, and depth) (-9.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] -16.5 to -3.0) than the classroom group. There were no significant differences on total score between classroom and kiosk participants. Additional outcome scores help explain which components negatively affect total score for each education method. The video-only group had lower compression depth scores (-9.9; 95% CI -14.0 to -5.7) than the classroom group. The kiosk group outperformed the classroom group on hand position score (4.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 8.6) but scored lower on compression depth score (-5.6; 95% CI -9.5 to -1.8). The change in 4 outcome variables was not significantly different across education type at 3-month follow-up.
Participants exposed to the kiosk session and those exposed to classroom education performed hands-only CPR similarly, and both groups showed skill performance superior to that of participants watching only a video. With regular retraining to prevent skills decay, the efficient and free hands-only CPR training kiosk has the potential to increase bystander intervention and improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
我们比较了 3 种仅用手进行心肺复苏(CPR)的教育方法,采用了表现评分。关于不同类型的仅用手 CPR 教育的比较效果,研究甚少。本研究还包括一种新颖的信息亭方法,据我们所知,这种方法以前没有被研究过。
一项随机对照研究比较了 4 种仅用手 CPR 结果测量指标的参与者得分,这些方法分别在 25-45 分钟的课堂学习和观看实践(课堂)、4 分钟的屏幕反馈和实践(信息亭)以及 1 分钟的视频观看(仅视频)后进行。参与者在初始培训后和 3 个月后进行 30 秒的压缩测试。
在初始教育课程后,仅视频组的总得分(手的放置、速率和深度的压缩正确)较低(-9.7;95%置信区间 [CI] -16.5 至 -3.0),低于课堂组。课堂组和信息亭组之间在总得分上没有显著差异。其他结果评分有助于解释每种教育方法中哪些因素对总得分产生负面影响。仅视频组的压缩深度得分(-9.9;95% CI -14.0 至 -5.7)低于课堂组。信息亭组在手的位置评分上优于课堂组(4.9;95% CI 1.3 至 8.6),但在压缩深度评分上得分较低(-5.6;95% CI -9.5 至 -1.8)。在 3 个月的随访中,教育类型的 4 个结果变量的变化没有显著差异。
接触信息亭课程的参与者和接触课堂教育的参与者表现出相似的仅用手 CPR 技能,并且两组的表现都优于仅观看视频的参与者。通过定期进行再培训以防止技能下降,高效且免费的仅用手 CPR 训练信息亭有可能增加旁观者干预,并提高院外心脏骤停的生存率。