Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial
Background: While just-in-time (JIT) training is associated with time and cost savings, limited evidence directly compares layperson CPR performance using JIT videos to in-person CPR courses. We measured layperson CPR performance using a JIT video compared to an in-person course or no training. Meth...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Resuscitation Plus |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002868 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850254764894322688 |
|---|---|
| author | S.A. Goldberg R.E. Cash G.A. Peters D. Jiang C. O’Brien M.A. Hasdianda E,M. Eberl K.J. Salerno J. Lees J. Kaithamattam J. Tom A.R. Panchal E. Goralnick |
| author_facet | S.A. Goldberg R.E. Cash G.A. Peters D. Jiang C. O’Brien M.A. Hasdianda E,M. Eberl K.J. Salerno J. Lees J. Kaithamattam J. Tom A.R. Panchal E. Goralnick |
| author_sort | S.A. Goldberg |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: While just-in-time (JIT) training is associated with time and cost savings, limited evidence directly compares layperson CPR performance using JIT videos to in-person CPR courses. We measured layperson CPR performance using a JIT video compared to an in-person course or no training. Methods: Adult employees at a professional sports stadium were randomized to perform CPR in a simulated scenario a) after completing an AHA HeartSaver® course, b) using a JIT training video, or c) neither (control). CPR performance was assessed by trained evaluators and QCPR-enabled simulators. The primary outcome was the performance of pre-defined critical actions. Participants were blinded to study objectives and trained evaluators used standardized checklists. Results: Of 230 eligible subjects, 221 were included in analysis, without significant differences in group characteristics. Correct CPR performance was low, though significantly higher in the AHA group (AHA: 40%, 95%CI 28–51; JIT: 15%, 95%CI 8–26; control 10%, 95%CI 4–19). Compression fraction was significantly greater in the AHA group (90%, IQR 69–98) compared to JIT (61%, IQR 29–89) or control (65%, IQR 33–93). An AED was requested more frequently in the AHA group (47%) than in the JIT (15%) or control (10%) groups. Conclusions: While overall performance of correct CPR skills was best following a traditional CPR course, laypersons using real-time video training performed as well as those taking an AHA HeartSaver® course on several key measures including time to chest compressions and compression rate.Trial Registration.NCT05983640. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0480120bf16147af9ee3cae0700b937a |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2666-5204 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Resuscitation Plus |
| spelling | doaj-art-0480120bf16147af9ee3cae0700b937a2025-08-20T01:57:04ZengElsevierResuscitation Plus2666-52042024-12-012010083510.1016/j.resplu.2024.100835Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trialS.A. Goldberg0R.E. Cash1G.A. Peters2D. Jiang3C. O’Brien4M.A. Hasdianda5E,M. Eberl6K.J. Salerno7J. Lees8J. Kaithamattam9J. Tom10A.R. Panchal11E. Goralnick12Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Corresponding author.Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USABrigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USAMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USAMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USABrigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USAMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USAMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USACoastal Medical Transportation Systems, Boston, MA, USAMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USAMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USAThe Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USABrigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USABackground: While just-in-time (JIT) training is associated with time and cost savings, limited evidence directly compares layperson CPR performance using JIT videos to in-person CPR courses. We measured layperson CPR performance using a JIT video compared to an in-person course or no training. Methods: Adult employees at a professional sports stadium were randomized to perform CPR in a simulated scenario a) after completing an AHA HeartSaver® course, b) using a JIT training video, or c) neither (control). CPR performance was assessed by trained evaluators and QCPR-enabled simulators. The primary outcome was the performance of pre-defined critical actions. Participants were blinded to study objectives and trained evaluators used standardized checklists. Results: Of 230 eligible subjects, 221 were included in analysis, without significant differences in group characteristics. Correct CPR performance was low, though significantly higher in the AHA group (AHA: 40%, 95%CI 28–51; JIT: 15%, 95%CI 8–26; control 10%, 95%CI 4–19). Compression fraction was significantly greater in the AHA group (90%, IQR 69–98) compared to JIT (61%, IQR 29–89) or control (65%, IQR 33–93). An AED was requested more frequently in the AHA group (47%) than in the JIT (15%) or control (10%) groups. Conclusions: While overall performance of correct CPR skills was best following a traditional CPR course, laypersons using real-time video training performed as well as those taking an AHA HeartSaver® course on several key measures including time to chest compressions and compression rate.Trial Registration.NCT05983640.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002868Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationJust in Time TrainingLaypersonsPublic Health EducationEmergency Response EducationVideo-based Learning |
| spellingShingle | S.A. Goldberg R.E. Cash G.A. Peters D. Jiang C. O’Brien M.A. Hasdianda E,M. Eberl K.J. Salerno J. Lees J. Kaithamattam J. Tom A.R. Panchal E. Goralnick Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial Resuscitation Plus Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Just in Time Training Laypersons Public Health Education Emergency Response Education Video-based Learning |
| title | Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_full | Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_fullStr | Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_short | Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_sort | evaluating video supported layperson cpr compared to a standard training course a randomized controlled trial |
| topic | Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Just in Time Training Laypersons Public Health Education Emergency Response Education Video-based Learning |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002868 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sagoldberg evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT recash evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT gapeters evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT djiang evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT cobrien evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT mahasdianda evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT emeberl evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT kjsalerno evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT jlees evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT jkaithamattam evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT jtom evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT arpanchal evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT egoralnick evaluatingvideosupportedlaypersoncprcomparedtoastandardtrainingcoursearandomizedcontrolledtrial |