Cargando…

Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of training strategy on team deployment of a mechanical chest compression device. DESIGN: Randomised controlled manikin trial. SETTING: Large teaching hospital in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty teams, each comprising three clinicians. Participating individuals were h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Couper, Keith, Velho, Rochelle M, Quinn, Tom, Devrell, Anne, Lall, Ranjit, Orriss, Barry, Yeung, Joyce, Perkins, Gavin D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5879816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29391379
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019009
_version_ 1783311056556261376
author Couper, Keith
Velho, Rochelle M
Quinn, Tom
Devrell, Anne
Lall, Ranjit
Orriss, Barry
Yeung, Joyce
Perkins, Gavin D
author_facet Couper, Keith
Velho, Rochelle M
Quinn, Tom
Devrell, Anne
Lall, Ranjit
Orriss, Barry
Yeung, Joyce
Perkins, Gavin D
author_sort Couper, Keith
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of training strategy on team deployment of a mechanical chest compression device. DESIGN: Randomised controlled manikin trial. SETTING: Large teaching hospital in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty teams, each comprising three clinicians. Participating individuals were health professionals with intermediate or advanced resuscitation training. INTERVENTIONS: Teams were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard mechanical chest compression device training or pit-crew device training. Training interventions lasted up to 1 h. Performance was measured immediately after training in a standardised simulated cardiac arrest scenario in which teams were required to deploy a mechanical chest compression device. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and mechanical device deployment metrics, and non-technical skill performance. Outcomes were assessed using video recordings of the test scenario. RESULTS: In relation to the primary outcome of chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression, we found that pit-crew training was not superior to standard training (0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79) vs 0.77 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82), mean difference −0.01 (95% CI −0.06 to 0.03), P=0.572). There was also no difference between groups in performance in relation to any secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Pit-crew training, compared with standard training, did not improve team deployment of a mechanical chest device in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43049287; Pre-results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5879816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58798162018-04-03 Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study Couper, Keith Velho, Rochelle M Quinn, Tom Devrell, Anne Lall, Ranjit Orriss, Barry Yeung, Joyce Perkins, Gavin D BMJ Open Intensive Care OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of training strategy on team deployment of a mechanical chest compression device. DESIGN: Randomised controlled manikin trial. SETTING: Large teaching hospital in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty teams, each comprising three clinicians. Participating individuals were health professionals with intermediate or advanced resuscitation training. INTERVENTIONS: Teams were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard mechanical chest compression device training or pit-crew device training. Training interventions lasted up to 1 h. Performance was measured immediately after training in a standardised simulated cardiac arrest scenario in which teams were required to deploy a mechanical chest compression device. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and mechanical device deployment metrics, and non-technical skill performance. Outcomes were assessed using video recordings of the test scenario. RESULTS: In relation to the primary outcome of chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression, we found that pit-crew training was not superior to standard training (0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79) vs 0.77 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82), mean difference −0.01 (95% CI −0.06 to 0.03), P=0.572). There was also no difference between groups in performance in relation to any secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Pit-crew training, compared with standard training, did not improve team deployment of a mechanical chest device in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43049287; Pre-results. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5879816/ /pubmed/29391379 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019009 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Intensive Care
Couper, Keith
Velho, Rochelle M
Quinn, Tom
Devrell, Anne
Lall, Ranjit
Orriss, Barry
Yeung, Joyce
Perkins, Gavin D
Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study
title Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study
title_full Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study
title_fullStr Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study
title_full_unstemmed Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study
title_short Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study
title_sort training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study
topic Intensive Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5879816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29391379
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019009
work_keys_str_mv AT couperkeith trainingapproachesforthedeploymentofamechanicalchestcompressiondevicearandomisedcontrolledmanikinstudy
AT velhorochellem trainingapproachesforthedeploymentofamechanicalchestcompressiondevicearandomisedcontrolledmanikinstudy
AT quinntom trainingapproachesforthedeploymentofamechanicalchestcompressiondevicearandomisedcontrolledmanikinstudy
AT devrellanne trainingapproachesforthedeploymentofamechanicalchestcompressiondevicearandomisedcontrolledmanikinstudy
AT lallranjit trainingapproachesforthedeploymentofamechanicalchestcompressiondevicearandomisedcontrolledmanikinstudy
AT orrissbarry trainingapproachesforthedeploymentofamechanicalchestcompressiondevicearandomisedcontrolledmanikinstudy
AT yeungjoyce trainingapproachesforthedeploymentofamechanicalchestcompressiondevicearandomisedcontrolledmanikinstudy
AT perkinsgavind trainingapproachesforthedeploymentofamechanicalchestcompressiondevicearandomisedcontrolledmanikinstudy