Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial

  • Kim Y
  • Cho Y
  • Cho G
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
53Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training can improve performance during simulated cardiac arrest; however, retention of skills after training remains uncertain. Recently, hands-only CPR has been shown to be as effective as conventional CPR. The purpose of this study is to compare the retention rate of CPR skills in laypersons after hands-only or conventional CPR training. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 CPR training methods: 80 minutes of hands-only CPR training or 180 minutes of conventional CPR training. Each participant's CPR skills were evaluated at the end of training and 3 months thereafter using the Resusci Anne manikin with a skill-reporting software. RESULTS: In total, 252 participants completed training; there were 125 in the hands-only CPR group and 127 in the conventional CPR group. After 3 months, 118 participants were randomly selected to complete a post-training test. The hands-only CPR group showed a significant decrease in average compression rate (P=0.015), average compression depth (P=0.031), and proportion of adequate compression depth (P=0.011). In contrast, there was no difference in the skills of the conventional CPR group after 3 months. CONCLUSION: Conventional CPR training appears to be more effective for the retention of chest compression skills than hands-only CPR training; however, the retention of artificial ventilation skills after conventional CPR training is poor.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, Y. J., Cho, Y., Cho, G. C., Ji, H. K., Han, S. Y., & Lee, J. H. (2017). Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine, 4(2), 88–93. https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.16.175

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free