Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2022 Apr;69:103164. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103164. Epub 2021 Dec 8.
Chest compression quality during in-hospital resuscitation is often suboptimal on a soft surface. Scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of a backboard is scarce. This single-blinded manikin study evaluated the effect of a backboard on compression depth, rate and chest recoil performed by nurses. Sex, BMI, age and clinical department were considered as potential predictors.
Using self-learning, nurses were retrained to achieve a minimal combined compression score at baseline. This combined score consisted of ≥70% compressions with depth 50-60 mm, ≥70% compressions with complete release (≤5mm) and a mean compression rate of 100-120 bpm. Subsequently, nurses were allocated to a backboard or control group and performed a two-minute cardiopulmonary resuscitation test. The main outcome measure was the difference in proportion of participants achieving a combined compression score of ≥70%.
In total 278 nurses were retrained, 158 nurses dropped out and 120 were allocated to the backboard (n = 61) or control group (n = 59). The proportion of participants achieving a combined compression score of ≥70% was not significantly different (p = 0.475) and suboptimal in both groups: backboard group 47.5% (backboard) versus 41.0% (control). Older age (≥51 years) was associated with a lower probability of achieving a combined compression score >70% [OR = 0.133; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.037-0.479; p = 0.002].
Using a backboard did not significantly improve compression quality in our study. Important decay of compression skills was observed in both groups, highlighting the importance of frequent retraining, particularly in some age groups.
在院内复苏过程中，胸部按压质量往往在软表面上不理想。关于背板有效性的科学证据很少。这项单盲模拟研究评估了背板对护士进行的按压深度、频率和胸部回弹的影响。性别、BMI、年龄和临床科室被认为是潜在的预测因素。
使用自我学习，护士接受再培训，以在基线时达到最小综合按压评分。该综合评分由≥70%的 50-60mm 深度的按压、≥70%的完全释放（≤5mm）的按压和 100-120bpm 的平均按压频率组成。随后，护士被分配到背板组或对照组，并进行两分钟心肺复苏测试。主要观察指标是达到≥70%综合按压评分的参与者比例差异。
共有 278 名护士接受再培训，158 名护士退出，120 名护士被分配到背板组（n=61）或对照组（n=59）。达到≥70%综合按压评分的参与者比例无显著差异（p=0.475），且两组均不理想：背板组 47.5%（背板）与对照组 41.0%（对照组）。年龄较大（≥51 岁）与达到≥70%综合按压评分的可能性降低相关[OR=0.133；95%置信区间（CI），0.037-0.479；p=0.002]。
在我们的研究中，使用背板并没有显著提高按压质量。两组都观察到按压技能明显下降，这突出了频繁再培训的重要性，特别是在某些年龄组。
