Open AccessEffectiveness of hands‐on cardiopulmonary resuscitation practice with self‐debriefing for healthcare providers: A simulation‐based controlled trial
Author(s) -
Fan HsuanJui,
You ShihHao,
Huang ChienHsiung,
Seak ChenJune,
Ng ChipJin,
Li WenCheng,
Lin ChiChun,
Weng YiMing
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
hong kong journal of emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.145
H-Index - 12
eISSN - 2309-5407
pISSN - 1024-9079
DOI - 10.1177/1024907917735086
Subject(s) - debriefing , cardiopulmonary resuscitation , medicine , resuscitation , test (biology) , randomized controlled trial , placebo , significant difference , physical therapy , medical emergency , anesthesia , surgery , medical education , alternative medicine , pathology , paleontology , biology
The psychomotor skill of cardiopulmonary resuscitation emphasized the importance of high‐quality chest compression. This investigation examined the effect of self‐debriefing and the different materials of debriefing during hands‐on cardiopulmonary resuscitation practice for healthcare providers. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation training program involving emergency medical technicians in northern Taiwan. Participants were blinded to the study purpose and were allocated randomly using the black envelope method. All participants completed a 2‐min pre‐test of hands‐only cardiopulmonary resuscitation using a manikin. Those who were allocated to the control group received self‐debriefing with knowledge of pre‐test result. Those who were allocated to the experimental group received self‐debriefing with an additional biomechanical information of performance of chest compression. A post‐test was performed 30 min after the pre‐test. Results: A total of 88 participants were enrolled with 44 in each group. There was significant difference of cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality after self‐debriefing among all participants (pre‐ vs post‐test adequate rate, 54.7% vs 67.5%, p = 0.028; adequate depth, 41.2% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001; full recoil, 35.9% vs 54.5%, p = 0.001). The analysis of effects of self‐debriefing with additional knowledge of performance revealed no significant difference in any of the measurements (improvement in adequate rate, 11.3% vs 14.2%, p = 0.767; adequate depth, 29.6% vs 27.0%, p = 0.784; full recoil, 23.0% vs 14.1%, p = 0.275). Conclusion: Self‐debriefing improved hands‐only cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality whether or not biomechanical information of performance of chest compression was given.