Cargando…
Potential to enhance telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation with improved instructions - findings from a simulation-based manikin study with lay rescuers
BACKGROUND: Telephone-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (T-CPR) significantly increases rate of bystander resuscitation and improves patient outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Nevertheless, securing correct execution of instructions remains a difficulty. ERC Guidelines 2021 recommend...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10067171/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37003971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12873-023-00810-0 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Telephone-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (T-CPR) significantly increases rate of bystander resuscitation and improves patient outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Nevertheless, securing correct execution of instructions remains a difficulty. ERC Guidelines 2021 recommend standardised instructions with continuous evaluation. Yet, there are no explicit recommendations on a standardised wording of T-CPR in the German language. We investigated, whether a modified wording regarding check for breathing in a German T-CPR protocol improved performance of T-CPR. METHODS: A simulation study with 48 OHCA scenarios was conducted. In a non-randomised trial study lay rescuers were instructed using the real-life-CPR protocol of the regional dispatch centre and as the intervention a modified T-CPR protocol, including specific check for breathing (head tilt-chin lift instructions). Resuscitation parameters were assessed with a manikin and video recordings. RESULTS: Check for breathing was performed by 64.3% (n = 14) of the lay rescuers with original wording and by 92.6% (n = 27) in the group with modified wording (p = 0.035). In the original wording group the head tilt-chin manoeuvre was executed by 0.0% of the lay rescuers compared to 70.3% in the group with modified wording (p < 0.001). The average duration of check for breathing was 1 ± 1 s in the original wording group and 4 ± 2 s in the group with modified wording (p < 0.001). Other instructions (e.g. check for consciousness and removal of clothing) were well performed and did not differ significantly between groups. Quality of chest compression did not differ significantly between groups, with the exception of mean chest compression depth, which was slightly deeper in the modified wording group. CONCLUSION: Correct check for breathing seems to be a problem for lay rescuers, which can be decreased by describing the assessment in more detail. Hence, T-CPR protocols should provide standardised explicit instructions on how to perform airway assessment. Each protocol should be evaluated for practicability. |
---|