These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: An evaluation of objective feedback in basic life support (BLS) training.
    Author: Spooner BB, Fallaha JF, Kocierz L, Smith CM, Smith SC, Perkins GD.
    Journal: Resuscitation; 2007 Jun; 73(3):417-24. PubMed ID: 17275158.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Studies show that acquisition and retention of BLS skills is poor, and this may contribute to low survival from cardiac arrest. Feedback from instructors during BLS training is often lacking. This study investigates the effects of continuous feedback from a manikin on chest compression and ventilation techniques during training compared to instructor feedback alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomised controlled trial. First-year healthcare students at the University of Birmingham were randomised to receive training in standard or feedback groups. The standard group were taught by an instructor using a conventional manikin. The feedback group used a 'Skillreporter' manikin, which provides continuous feedback on ventilation volume and chest compression depth and rate in addition to instructor feedback. Skill acquisition was tested immediately after training and 6 weeks later. RESULTS: Ninety-eight participants were recruited (conventional n=49; Skillreporter n=49) and were tested after training. Sixty-six students returned (Skillreporter n=34; conventional n=32) for testing 6 weeks later. The Skillreporter group achieved better compression depth (39.96mm versus 36.71mm, P<0.05), and more correct compressions (58.0% versus 40.4%, P<0.05) at initial testing. The Skillreporter group also achieved more correct compressions at week 6 (43.1% versus 26.5%, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that objective feedback during training improves the performance of BLS skills significantly when tested immediately after training and at re-testing 6 weeks later. However, CPR performance declined substantially over time in both groups.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]