A randomised trial of the effectiveness of instructor versus automated manikin feedback for training junior doctors in life support skills

Chris Wilson, Erin Furness, Leah Proctor, Greg Sweetman, Kathryn Hird, Chris Wilson, Erin Furness, Leah Proctor, Greg Sweetman, Kathryn Hird

Abstract

Introduction: Australian Standards require that clinicians undergo regular training in skills required to respond to the acute deterioration of a patient. Training focuses on the ability to appropriately respond to cardiac arrest, including delivering cardiac compressions, ventilation and appropriate defibrillation. Providing such training comes at a significant cost to the organisation and impacts on clinician time in direct patient care. If effective, the use of an automated manikin could significantly reduce costs and provide consistent training experiences.

Methods: Fifty-six resident medical officers were randomised to two groups to test two skills components of hospital life support training under two feedback conditions. The skills components were cardiac compressions and bag-valve-mask ventilation. The feedback conditions were automated feedback delivered by a simulation manikin and traditional feedback delivered by an instructor. All participants were exposed to both skills components and both feedback conditions in a counterbalanced block design. Participants completed surveys before and after training.

Results: The results demonstrated significantly better performance in cardiac compressions under the automated manikin feedback condition compared with the instructor feedback condition. This difference was not observed in bag-valve-mask ventilation. The majority of participants found the automated manikin feedback more useful than the instructor feedback.

Discussion: Automated manikin feedback was not inferior to instructor feedback for skill acquisition in cardiac compressions training. The automated feedback condition did not achieve the same level of significance in bag-valve-mask ventilation training. Results suggest training with automated feedback presents a cost-effective opportunity to lessen the training burden, whilst improving skill acquisition.

Keywords: Audio-visual feedback; Basic life support; Cardiac compressions; Hospital life support; Simulation; Ventilation.

Conflict of interest statement

C. Wilson, E. Furness, L. Proctor, G. Sweetman and K. Hird declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Average performance in cardiac compressions and bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation under automated manikin and instructor feedback conditions

References

    1. Yu T, Weil MH, Tang W, et al. Adverse outcomes of interrupted precordial compression during automated defibrillation. Circulation. 2002;106:368–372. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000021429.22005.2E.
    1. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care . National safety and quality health service standards. 2 2017.
    1. Lippert E. Education as standardised teaching or individual training or both. Resuscitation. 2013;84:1171–1172. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.06.006.
    1. Niles DE, Nishisaki A, Sutton RM, et al. Improved retention of chest compression psychomotor skills with brief “rolling refresher” training. Simul Healthc. 2017;12:213–219. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000228.
    1. Woollard M, Whitfeild R, Smith A, et al. Skill acquisition and retention in automated external defibrillator (AED) use and CPR by lay responders: a prospective study. Resuscitation. 2004;60:17–28. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.09.006.
    1. The Australian Resuscitation Council . Guideline 11.1.1 cardiopulmonary resuscitation for advanced life support providers. 2010.
    1. Kim SH, Shin JH. Effects and retention of self-re-learning using video recording of CPR on nursing student’s knowledge, self-efficacy, and skill performance. Resuscitation. 2019;142:71–72. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.06.171.
    1. Greif R, Lockey AS, Conaghan P, et al. European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2015: Section 10. Education and implementation of resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2015;95:288–301. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.032.
    1. Abella BS, Sandbo N, Vassilatos P, et al. Chest compression rates during cardiopulmonary resuscitation are suboptimal: a prospective study during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2005;111:428–434. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000153811.84257.59.
    1. Cheng A, Overly F, Kessler D, et al. Perception of CPR quality: influence of CPR feedback, just-in-time CPR training and provider role. Resuscitation. 2015;87:44–50. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.11.015.
    1. Hostler D, Wang H, Parrish K, Platt TE, Guimond G. The effect of a voice assist manikin (VAM) system on CPR quality among prehospital providers. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2005;9:53–60. doi: 10.1080/10903120590891660.
    1. Isbye DL, Hoiby P, Rasmussen MB, et al. Voice advisory manikin versus instructor facilitated training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2008;79:73–81. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.06.012.
    1. Isbye DL, Meyhoff CS, Lippert FK, Rasmussen LS. Skill retention in adults and in children 3 months after basic life support training using a simple personal resuscitation manikin. Resuscitation. 2007;74:296–302. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.12.012.
    1. Krasteva V, Jekova I, Didon JP. An audiovisual feedback device for compression depth, rate and complete chest recoil can improve the CPR performance of lay persons during self-training on a manikin. Physiol Meas. 2011;32:687–699. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/32/6/006.
    1. Lukas RP, Sengelhoff C, Dopker S, et al. Chest compression quality: Can feedback technology help? Anaesthesist. 2010;59:135–139. doi: 10.1007/s00101-009-1671-4.
    1. Montgomery C, Kardong-Edgren SE, Oermann MH, Odom-Maryon T. Student satisfaction and self report of CPR competency: HeartCode BLS courses, instructor-led CPR courses, and monthly voice advisory manikin practice for CPR skill maintenance. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2012 doi: 10.1515/1548-923X.2361.
    1. Nielsen AM, Henriksen MJ, Isbye DL, Lippert FK, Rasmussen LS. Acquisition and retention of basic life support skills in an untrained population using a personal resuscitation manikin and video self-instruction (VSI) Resuscitation. 2010;81:1156–1160. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.06.003.
    1. Oermann MH, Kardong-Edgren S, Odom-Maryon T, et al. HeartCode BLS with voice assisted manikin for teaching nursing students: preliminary results. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2010;31:303–308.
    1. Semeraro F, Frisoli A, Loconsole C, et al. Motion detection technology as a tool for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality training: a randomised crossover mannequin pilot study. Resuscitation. 2013;84:501–507. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.12.006.
    1. Smart JR, Kranz K, Carmona F, Lindner TW, Newton A. Does real-time objective feedback and competition improve performance and quality in manikin CPR training—a prospective observational study from several European EMS. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015;23:79. doi: 10.1186/s13049-015-0160-9.
    1. Sutton RM, Donoghue A, Myklebust H, et al. The voice advisory manikin (VAM): an innovative approach to pediatric lay provider basic life support skill education. Resuscitation. 2007;75:161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.02.007.
    1. Sutton RM, Niles D, Meaney PA, et al. Low-dose, high-frequency CPR training improves skill retention of in-hospital pediatric providers. Pediatrics. 2011;128:e145–e151. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2105.
    1. Wik L, Thowsen J, Steen PA. An automated voice advisory manikin system for training in basic life support without an instructor. A novel approach to CPR training. Resuscitation. 2001;50:167–172. doi: 10.1016/S0300-9572(01)00331-8.
    1. Yeung J, Meeks R, Edelson D, et al. The use of CPR feedback/prompt devices during training and CPR performance: a systematic review. Resuscitation. 2009;80:743–751. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.04.012.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다