Cargando…

Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training can improve performance during simulated cardiac arrest; however, retention of skills after training remains uncertain. Recently, hands-only CPR has been shown to be as effective as conventional CPR. The purpose of this study is to compare the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Young Joon, Cho, Youngsuk, Cho, Gyu Chong, Ji, Hyun Kyung, Han, Song Yi, Lee, Jin Hyuck
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5511957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28717778
http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.16.175
_version_ 1783250426529841152
author Kim, Young Joon
Cho, Youngsuk
Cho, Gyu Chong
Ji, Hyun Kyung
Han, Song Yi
Lee, Jin Hyuck
author_facet Kim, Young Joon
Cho, Youngsuk
Cho, Gyu Chong
Ji, Hyun Kyung
Han, Song Yi
Lee, Jin Hyuck
author_sort Kim, Young Joon
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training can improve performance during simulated cardiac arrest; however, retention of skills after training remains uncertain. Recently, hands-only CPR has been shown to be as effective as conventional CPR. The purpose of this study is to compare the retention rate of CPR skills in laypersons after hands-only or conventional CPR training. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 CPR training methods: 80 minutes of hands-only CPR training or 180 minutes of conventional CPR training. Each participant’s CPR skills were evaluated at the end of training and 3 months thereafter using the Resusci Anne manikin with a skill-reporting software. RESULTS: In total, 252 participants completed training; there were 125 in the hands-only CPR group and 127 in the conventional CPR group. After 3 months, 118 participants were randomly selected to complete a post-training test. The hands-only CPR group showed a significant decrease in average compression rate (P=0.015), average compression depth (P=0.031), and proportion of adequate compression depth (P=0.011). In contrast, there was no difference in the skills of the conventional CPR group after 3 months. CONCLUSION: Conventional CPR training appears to be more effective for the retention of chest compression skills than hands-only CPR training; however, the retention of artificial ventilation skills after conventional CPR training is poor.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5511957
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55119572017-07-17 Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial Kim, Young Joon Cho, Youngsuk Cho, Gyu Chong Ji, Hyun Kyung Han, Song Yi Lee, Jin Hyuck Clin Exp Emerg Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training can improve performance during simulated cardiac arrest; however, retention of skills after training remains uncertain. Recently, hands-only CPR has been shown to be as effective as conventional CPR. The purpose of this study is to compare the retention rate of CPR skills in laypersons after hands-only or conventional CPR training. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 CPR training methods: 80 minutes of hands-only CPR training or 180 minutes of conventional CPR training. Each participant’s CPR skills were evaluated at the end of training and 3 months thereafter using the Resusci Anne manikin with a skill-reporting software. RESULTS: In total, 252 participants completed training; there were 125 in the hands-only CPR group and 127 in the conventional CPR group. After 3 months, 118 participants were randomly selected to complete a post-training test. The hands-only CPR group showed a significant decrease in average compression rate (P=0.015), average compression depth (P=0.031), and proportion of adequate compression depth (P=0.011). In contrast, there was no difference in the skills of the conventional CPR group after 3 months. CONCLUSION: Conventional CPR training appears to be more effective for the retention of chest compression skills than hands-only CPR training; however, the retention of artificial ventilation skills after conventional CPR training is poor. The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2017-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5511957/ /pubmed/28717778 http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.16.175 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Kim, Young Joon
Cho, Youngsuk
Cho, Gyu Chong
Ji, Hyun Kyung
Han, Song Yi
Lee, Jin Hyuck
Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial
title Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial
title_full Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial
title_short Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5511957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28717778
http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.16.175
work_keys_str_mv AT kimyoungjoon retentionofcardiopulmonaryresuscitationskillsafterhandsonlytrainingversusconventionaltraininginnovicesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT choyoungsuk retentionofcardiopulmonaryresuscitationskillsafterhandsonlytrainingversusconventionaltraininginnovicesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT chogyuchong retentionofcardiopulmonaryresuscitationskillsafterhandsonlytrainingversusconventionaltraininginnovicesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT jihyunkyung retentionofcardiopulmonaryresuscitationskillsafterhandsonlytrainingversusconventionaltraininginnovicesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hansongyi retentionofcardiopulmonaryresuscitationskillsafterhandsonlytrainingversusconventionaltraininginnovicesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT leejinhyuck retentionofcardiopulmonaryresuscitationskillsafterhandsonlytrainingversusconventionaltraininginnovicesarandomizedcontrolledtrial