Comparison of Tele-Education and Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training During COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed by lay rescuers can increase a person's chance of survival. The COVID-19 pandemic enforced prevention policies that encouraged social distancing, which disrupted conventional modes of health care education. Tele-education may benefit CPR training during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare CPR knowledge and skills using tele-education vs. conventional classroom teaching methods. METHODS: A noninferiority trial was conducted as a Basic Life Support workshop. Participants were randomly assigned to a tele-education or conventional group. Primary outcomes assessed were CPR knowledge and skills and secondary outcomes assessed were individual skills, ventilation, and chest compression characteristics. RESULTS: Pretraining knowledge scores (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 3.50 ± 2.18 vs. 4.35 ± 1.70; p = 0.151) and post-training knowledge scores (7.91 ± 2.14 vs. 8.52 ± 0.90; p = 0.502) of the tele-education and conventional groups, respectively, had no statistically significant difference. Both groups’ training resulted in a significant and comparable gain in knowledge scores (p < 0.001). The tele-education and conventional groups skill scores (mean ± SD 78.30 ± 6.77 vs. 79.65 ± 9.93; p = 0.579) had no statistical difference. Skillset scores did not differ statistically except for the compression rate and ventilation ratio; the conventional group performed better (p = 0.042 vs. p = 0.017). The tele-education and conventional groups’ number of participants passed the skill test (95.5% and 91.3%, respectively; p = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: Tele-education offers a pragmatic and reasonably effective alternative to conventional CPR training during the COVID-19 pandemic.