Search

Objective: The objective was to compare resuscitation performance on simulated in-hospital cardiac arrests after traditional American Heart Association (AHA) Healthcare Provider Basic Life Support course (TradBLS) versus revised course including in-hospital skills (HospBLS)., Design: This study is a prospective, randomized, controlled curriculum evaluation., Setting: Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center., Subjects: One hundred twenty-two first year medical students were divided into fifty-nine teams., Intervention: HospBLS course of identical length, containing additional content contextual to hospital environments, taught utilizing Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP)., Measurements: The primary outcome measure during simulated cardiac arrest scenarios was chest compression fraction (CCF) and secondary outcome measures included metrics of high quality resuscitation., Main Results: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest HospBLS teams had larger CCF: [69% (65-74) vs. 58% (53-62), p<0.001] and were faster than TradBLS at initiating compressions: [median (IQR): 9s (7-12) vs. 22s (17.5-30.5), p<0.001]. In-hospital cardiac arrest HospBLS teams had larger CCF: [73% (68-75) vs. 50% (43-54), p<0.001] and were faster to initiate compressions: [10s (6-11) vs. 36s (27-63), p<0.001]. All teams utilized the hospital AED to defibrillate within 180s per AHA guidelines [HospBLS: 122s (103-149) vs. TradBLS: 139s (117-172), p=0.09]. HospBLS teams performed more hospital-specific maneuvers to optimize compressions, i.e. utilized: CPR button to flatten bed: [7/30 (23%) vs. 0/29 (0%), p=0.006], backboard: [21/30 (70%) vs. 5/29 (17%), p<0.001], stepstool: [28/30 (93%) vs. 8/29 (28%), p<0.001], lowered bedrails: [28/30 (93%) vs. 10/29 (34%), p<0.001], connected oxygen appropriately: [26/30 (87%) vs. 1/29 (3%), p<0.001] and used oral airway and/or two-person bagging when traditional bag-mask-ventilation unsuccessful: [30/30 (100%) vs. 0/29 (0%), p<0.001]., Conclusion: A hospital focused BLS course utilizing RCDP was associated with improved performance on hospital-specific quality measures compared with the traditional AHA course., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: Globally, one third of deaths each year are from cardiovascular diseases, yet no strong evidence supports any specific method of CPR instruction in a resource-limited setting. We hypothesized that both existing and novel CPR training programs significantly impact skills of hospital-based healthcare providers (HCP) in Botswana., Methods: HCP were prospectively randomized to 3 training groups: instructor led, limited instructor with manikin feedback, or self-directed learning. Data was collected prior to training, immediately after and at 3 and 6 months. Excellent CPR was prospectively defined as having at least 4 of 5 characteristics: depth, rate, release, no flow fraction, and no excessive ventilation. GEE was performed to account for within subject correlation., Results: Of 214 HCP trained, 40% resuscitate ≥ 1/month, 28% had previous formal CPR training, and 65% required additional skills remediation to pass using AHA criteria. Excellent CPR skill acquisition was significant (infant: 32% vs. 71%, p<0.01; adult 28% vs. 48%, p<0.01). Infant CPR skill retention was significant at 3 (39% vs. 70%, p<0.01) and 6 months (38% vs. 67%, p<0.01), and adult CPR skills were retained to 3 months (34% vs. 51%, p=0.02). On multivariable analysis, low cognitive score and need for skill remediation, but not instruction method, impacted CPR skill performance., Conclusions: HCP in resource-limited settings resuscitate frequently, with little CPR training. Using existing training, HCP acquire and retain skills, yet often require remediation. Novel techniques with increased student: instructor ratio and feedback manikins were not different compared to traditional instruction., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)