Teaching basic life support with an automated external defibrillator using the two-stage or the four-stage teaching technique.

INTRODUCTION: Laypersons often hesitate to perform basic life support (BLS) and use an automated external defibrillator (AED) because of self-perceived lack of knowledge and skills. Training may reduce the barrier to intervene. Reduced training time and costs may allow training of more laypersons. The aim of this study was to compare BLS/AED skills' acquisition and self-evaluated BLS/AED skills after instructor-led training with a two-stage versus a four-stage teaching technique. METHODS: Laypersons were randomized to either two-stage or four-stage teaching technique courses. Immediately after training, the participants were tested in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario to assess their BLS/AED skills. Skills were assessed using the European Resuscitation Council BLS/AED assessment form. The primary endpoint was passing the test (17 of 17 skills adequately performed). A prespecified noninferiority margin of 20% was used. RESULTS: The two-stage teaching technique (n=72, pass rate 57%) was noninferior to the four-stage technique (n=70, pass rate 59%), with a difference in pass rates of -2%; 95% confidence interval: -18 to 15%. Neither were there significant differences between the two-stage and four-stage groups in the chest compression rate (114±12 vs. 115±14/min), chest compression depth (47±9 vs. 48±9 mm) and number of sufficient rescue breaths between compression cycles (1.7±0.5 vs. 1.6±0.7). In both groups, all participants believed that their training had improved their skills. CONCLUSION: Teaching laypersons BLS/AED using the two-stage teaching technique was noninferior to the four-stage teaching technique, although the pass rate was -2% (95% confidence interval: -18 to 15%) lower with the two-stage teaching technique.

A novel protocol for dispatcher assisted CPR improves CPR quality and motivation among rescuers-A randomized controlled simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency dispatchers use protocols to instruct bystanders in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Studies changing one element in the dispatcher's protocol report improved CPR quality. Whether several changes interact is unknown and the effect of combining multiple changes previously reported to improve CPR quality into one protocol remains to be investigated. We hypothesize that a novel dispatch protocol, combining multiple beneficial elements improves CPR quality compared with a standard protocol. METHODS: A novel dispatch protocol was designed including wording on chest compressions, using a metronome, regular encouragements and a 10-s rest each minute. In a simulated cardiac arrest scenario, laypersons were randomized to perform single-rescuer CPR guided with the novel or the standard protocol. PRIMARY OUTCOME: a composite endpoint of time to first compression, hand position, compression depth and rate and hands-off time (maximum score: 22 points). Afterwards participants answered a questionnaire evaluating the dispatcher assistance. RESULTS: The novel protocol (n=61) improved CPR quality score compared with the standard protocol (n=64) (mean (SD): 18.6 (1.4)) points vs. 17.5 (1.7) points, p<0.001. The novel protocol resulted in deeper chest compressions (mean (SD): 58 (12)mm vs. 52 (13)mm, p=0.02) and improved rate of correct hand position (61% vs. 36%, p=0.01) compared with the standard protocol. In both protocols hands-off time was short. The novel protocol improved motivation among rescuers compared with the standard protocol (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Participants guided with a standard dispatch protocol performed high quality CPR. A novel bundle of care protocol improved CPR quality score and motivation among rescuers.

E-learning in pediatric basic life support: a randomized controlled non-inferiority study.

OBJECTIVE: Dissemination of pediatric basic life support (PBLS) skills is recommended. E-learning is accessible and cost-effective, but it is currently unknown whether laypersons can learn PBLS through e-learning. The hypothesis of this study was to investigate whether e-learning PBLS is non-inferior to instructor-led training. STUDY DESIGN: Participants were recruited among child-minders and parents of children aged 0-6 years. Participants were randomized to either 2-h instructor-led training or e-learning using an e-learning program (duration 17 min) including an inflatable manikin. After training, participants were assessed in a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest scenario. Tests were video recorded and PBLS skills were assessed independently by two assessors blinded to training method. Primary outcome was the pass rate of the PBLS test (≥8 of 15 skills adequately performed) with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20%. RESULTS: In total 160 participants were randomized 1:1. E-learning was non-inferior to instructor-led training (difference in pass rate -4%; 95% CI -9:0.5). Pass rates were 100% among instructor-led trained (n=67) and 96% among e-learned (n=71). E-learners median time spent on the e-learning program was 30 min (range: 15-120 min) and the median number of log-ons was 2 (range: 1-5). After the study, all participants felt that their skills had improved. CONCLUSION: E-learning PBLS is non-inferior to instructor-led training among child-minders and parents with children aged 0-6 years, although the pass rate was 4% (95% CI -9:0.5) lower with e-learning.