Pellegrino Jeffrey L, Back Anna, Chan Ada, Muise Joanna
Disaster Science and Emergency Services, The University of Akron, Akron, USA.
Health Education Solutions, Canadian Red Cross, Ottawa, CAN.
Cureus. 2024 Jul 23;16(7):e65181. doi: 10.7759/cureus.65181. eCollection 2024 Jul.
Directive feedback manikins in resuscitation training evolved faster than the pedagogical evidence. Educators and learning systems must seek clarification on the efficacy of this technology to have evidence-based practices. This project explores directive feedback device use in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education for laypersons.
A prospective nonrandomized-controlled design assessed two pedagogical approaches of directive feedback manikins in adult CPR lessons. The 230 participants were distributed between three groups: a control group without directive feedback manikins (no lights, NL), an expert coaching (EC) group with directive feedback and educator interpretation, and a peer coaching (PC) group with directive feedback, peer interpretation, and expert quality assurance.
From the 25 courses observed, average compression depth (mm) did not differ between groups ( = .498), average compression rate (compressions: minute) significantly differed between groups ( = .004), and correct hand placement did not differ between groups ( = .249). A chi-square test showed no significant association between groups and CPR skill feedback, or between groups and "recommending the course to a friend or family member." The PC group was more likely to agree that they could "coach someone to do CPR skills" than the NL or EC.
This study expands the knowledge base of directive feedback manikins in a pedagogical setting to improve CPR competencies. Training organizations may consider any of these practices effective, choosing those that align with desired outcomes. CPR educators need orientation to feedback devices as well as professional development on educational options for their use. Considerations for further research include technology costs, access, and cultural aspects of implementing these tools.
复苏培训中的指导性反馈人体模型的发展速度超过了教学证据。教育工作者和学习系统必须寻求关于这项技术有效性的明确信息,以实现基于证据的实践。本项目探讨了指导性反馈设备在面向非专业人员的心肺复苏(CPR)教育中的应用。
一项前瞻性非随机对照设计评估了指导性反馈人体模型在成人CPR课程中的两种教学方法。230名参与者被分为三组:一个没有指导性反馈人体模型的对照组(无灯光,NL),一个有指导性反馈和教育工作者解读的专家指导(EC)组,以及一个有指导性反馈、同伴解读和专家质量保证的同伴指导(PC)组。
在观察的25门课程中,各组之间的平均按压深度(毫米)没有差异(=0.498),各组之间的平均按压速率(按压次数:分钟)有显著差异(=0.004),各组之间正确的手部放置没有差异(=0.249)。卡方检验显示,各组与CPR技能反馈之间,以及各组与“向朋友或家人推荐该课程”之间没有显著关联。与NL或EC组相比,PC组更有可能同意他们可以“指导某人进行CPR技能”。
本研究扩展了指导性反馈人体模型在教学环境中的知识基础,以提高CPR能力。培训组织可能认为这些实践中的任何一种都是有效的,选择那些与预期结果一致的实践。CPR教育工作者需要了解反馈设备,并接受关于其使用的教育选项的专业发展培训。进一步研究的考虑因素包括技术成本、获取途径以及实施这些工具的文化方面。