Comparison of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality Between Standard Versus Telephone-Basic Life Support Training Program in Middle-Aged and Elderly Housewives: A Randomized Simulation Study. Issue 1 (February 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, Tae Han; Lee, Yu Jin; Lee, Eui Jung; Ro, Young Sun; Lee, KyungWon; Lee, Hyeona; Jang, Dayea Beatrice; Song, Kyoung Jun; Shin, Sang Do; Myklebust, Helge; Birkenes, Tonje Søraas
• Is Part Of: Simulation in healthcare. Volume 13:Issue 1(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-02
• Subjects: Telephone CPR -- Basic life support -- Cardiac arrest; Simulated patients -- Periodicals; 362.1
• DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000286
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1559-2332

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: For cardiac arrests witnessed at home, the witness is usually a middle-aged or older housewife. We compared the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance of bystanders trained with the newly developed telephone-basic life support (T-BLS) program and those trained with standard BLS (S-BLS) training programs. Methods: Twenty-four middle-aged and older housewives without previous CPR education were enrolled and randomized into two groups of BLS training programs. The T-BLS training program included concepts and current instruction protocols for telephone-assisted CPR, whereas the S-BLS training program provided training for BLS. After each training course, the participants simulated CPR and were assisted by a dispatcher via telephone. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality was measured and recorded using a mannequin simulator. The primary outcome was total no-flow time (>1.5 seconds without chest compression) during simulation. Results: Among 24 participants, two (8.3%) who experienced mechanical failure of simulation mannequin and one (4.2%) who violated simulation protocols were excluded at initial simulation, and two (8.3%) refused follow-up after 6 months. The median (interquartile range) total no-flow time during initial simulation was 79.6 (66.4–96.9) seconds for the T-BLS training group and 147.6 (122.5–184.0) seconds for the S-BLS training group ( P < 0.01). Median cumulative interruption time and median number of interruption events during BLS at initial simulation and 6-month follow-up simulation were significantly shorter in the T-BLS than in the S-BLS group (1.0 vs. 9.5, P < 0.01, and 1.0 vs. 10.5, P = 0.02, respectively). Conclusions: Participants trained with the T-BLS training program showed shorter no-flow time and fewer interruptions during bystander CPR simulation assisted by a dispatcher.