Combination of problem-based learning with high-fidelity simulation in CPR training improves short and long-term CPR skills: a randomised single blinded trial
| Autor: | Christian Berger; Peter Brinkrolf; Cristian Ertmer; Jan Becker; Hendrik Friederichs; Manuel Wenk; Hugo Van Aken; Klaus Hahnenkamp |
|---|---|
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2019 |
| Quelle: | Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles |
| Online Zugang: |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-019-1626-7 https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6920 doi:10.1186/s12909-019-1626-7 1472-6920 https://doaj.org/article/bff7528637284b479d423f4c5426cb60 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1626-7 https://doaj.org/article/bff7528637284b479d423f4c5426cb60 |
| Erfassungsnummer: | ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:bff7528637284b479d423f4c5426cb60 |
Zusammenfassung
Abstract Background Performance of sufficient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by medical personnel is critical to improve outcomes during cardiac arrest. It has however been shown that even health care professionals possess a lack of knowledge and skills in CPR performance. The optimal method for teaching CPR remains unclear, and data that compares traditional CPR instructional methods with newer modalities of CPR instruction are needed. We therefore conducted a single blinded, randomised study involving medical students in order to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of a classical CPR education compared with a bilateral approach to CPR training, consisting of problem-based learning (PBL) plus high fidelity simulation. Methods One hundred twelve medical students were randomized during a curricular anaesthesiology course to a control (n = 54) and an intervention (n = 58) group. All participants were blinded to group assignment and partook in a 30-min-lecture on CPR basics. Subsequently, the control group participated in a 90-min tutor-guided CPR hands-on-training. The intervention group took part in a 45-min theoretical PBL module followed by 45 min of high fidelity simulated CPR training. The rate of participants recognizing clinical cardiac arrest followed by sufficiently performed CPR was the primary outcome parameter of this study. CPR performance was evaluated after the intervention. In addition, a follow-up evaluation was conducted after 6 months. Results 51.9% of the intervention group met the criteria of sufficiently performed CPR as compared to only 12.5% in the control group on the day of the intervention (p = 0.007). Hands-off-time as a marker for CPR continuity was significantly less in the intervention group (24.0%) as compared to the control group (28.3%, p = 0.007, Hedges’ g = 1.55). At the six-month follow-up, hands-off-time was still significantly lower in the intervention group (23.7% vs. control group: 31.0%, p = 0.006, Hedges’ g = 1.88) but no significant difference in sufficiently ...