Cargando…

Evaluation of class participation in non-face-to-face CPR training for medical students

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education requires that learners practice key skills to promote mastery. Our aim in this study was to evaluate differences in post-education performance and class participation during CPR training between face-to- face (FF) and non-face-to-face (NFF) l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cho, Young Shin, Park, Hye Ji, Choi, Daun, Park, Hang A., Kim, Sola, Park, Ju Ok, Wang, Soon-Joo, Lee, Choung Ah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9714871/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36454883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278273
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education requires that learners practice key skills to promote mastery. Our aim in this study was to evaluate differences in post-education performance and class participation during CPR training between face-to- face (FF) and non-face-to-face (NFF) learning formats. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled study of third-year medical students from two university hospital, allocated to either the FF or NFF format for CPR education. The learning scenario addressed single-person CPR, consisting of chest compression only, and excluded breathing. The Kahoot! application was used for NFF. Between-group comparisons for class participation and CPR skills were based on video recordings. RESULTS: Seventy students participated in our study, with 35 randomly allocated to the FF and NFF groups. There were no between-group differences in terms of age, sex, previous basic life support training, and willingness and confidence in performing CPR. Compared to the FF group, the NFF group demonstrated significant differences during CPR, including fewer calling for assistance and using of defibrillator (p = 0.006), as well as fewer checking for breathing (p = 0.007), and fewer counting during chest compression (p = 0.006). Additionally, < 30% of learners in the NFF group completed rhythm analysis after the last defibrillator shock delivery and resumed immediate chest compression (p < 0.001). All students in both groups passed the post-training assessment. CONCLUSION: Class participation in NFF learning was lower than that in FF learning. Although the post-education evaluation in the NFF group was not inferior, efforts on promoting active participation in NFF learning are required.