Morin Chelsea M D, Law Brenda H Y, Duff Jonathan P, Schmölzer Georg M
Centre for the Studies of Asphyxia and Resuscitation, Neonatal Research Unit, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Resusc Plus. 2024 Jul 17;19:100721. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100721. eCollection 2024 Sep.
A new cardiopulmonary resuscitation technique, chest compressions with sustained inflation (CC + SI) might be an alternative to both the neonatal [3:1compressions to ventilations (3:1C:V)] and paediatric [chest compression with asynchronous ventilation (CCaV)] approaches. The human factors associated with this technique are unknown. We aimed to compare the physical, cognitive, and team-based human factors for CC + SI to standard CPR (3:1C:V or CCaV).
Randomized crossover simulation study including 40 participants on 20 two-person teams. Workload [National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX)], crisis resource management skills (CRM) [Ottawa Global Rating Scale (OGRS)], and debrief analysis were compared.
There was no difference in paired NASA-TLX scores for any dimension between the CC + SI and standard, adjusting for CPR order. There was no difference in CRM scores for CC + SI compared to standard. Participants were less familiar with CC + SI although many found it simpler to perform, better for transitions/switching roles, and better for communication.
The human factors are no more physically or cognitively demanding with CC + SI compared to standard CPR (NASA-TLX and participant debrief) and team performance was no different with CC + SI compared to standard CPR (OGRS score).
一种新的心肺复苏技术,即持续充气胸外按压(CC + SI)可能是新生儿[3:1按压与通气比例(3:1C:V)]和儿科[异步通气胸外按压(CCaV)]方法的替代方案。与该技术相关的人为因素尚不清楚。我们旨在比较CC + SI与标准心肺复苏(3:1C:V或CCaV)在身体、认知和团队层面的人为因素。
随机交叉模拟研究,包括20个两人小组的40名参与者。比较工作量[美国国家航空航天局任务负荷指数(NASA-TLX)]、危机资源管理技能(CRM)[渥太华全球评分量表(OGRS)]和复盘分析。
在调整心肺复苏顺序后,CC + SI与标准方法在任何维度上的配对NASA-TLX评分均无差异。与标准方法相比,CC + SI的CRM评分无差异。参与者对CC + SI不太熟悉,尽管许多人发现它执行起来更简单,在角色转换/切换方面更好,且在沟通方面更好。
与标准心肺复苏相比,CC + SI在身体或认知上对人为因素的要求并不更高(NASA-TLX和参与者复盘),并且与标准心肺复苏相比,CC + SI的团队表现也没有差异(OGRS评分)。