Metronome vs. Popular song: A comparison of long-term retention of chest compression skills after layperson training for cardiopulmonary resuscitation

10Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Long-term retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skill is challenging for layperson trainees. This study compared the long-term retention of chest compression skills after either metronomeguided (MG) or popular song-guided (PG) CPR training. Methods: This was a prospective randomised simulation trial. Untrained laypersons were randomly allocated to MG (n=61) or PG (n=68) groups at CPR training sessions. After CPR training, each participant performed 5-cycle CPR using a manikin with a Skill-Reporter™ immediately and six months afterwards. Results: Immediately after training, the mean compression rate (MCR) was slightly higher in the PG than the MG group (107.4 vs. 102.2/min; p<0.0001), but there was no significant difference in the proportions of participants with an appropriate chest compression rate (100-120/min) (PSACCR) between the MG and PG (53/61 (86.9%) vs. 65/68 (95.6%); p=0.114). Six months later, MCR was faster in the MG than the PG (124.8 vs. 110.0/min; p<0.0001), and PSACCR in the PG was higher than that in the MG (62/68 (91.2%) vs. 25/61 (41.0%); p<0.0001). In both tests, there were no significant differences in other chest compression parameters of between the two groups, except for a minimal difference in incomplete chest release. Conclusion: CPR training using a popular song is more effective than metronome-guided training in helping laypersons to maintain recommended compression rates after 6 months.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hong, C. K., Hwang, S. Y., Lee, K. Y., Kim, Y. S., Ha, Y. R., & Park, S. O. (2016). Metronome vs. Popular song: A comparison of long-term retention of chest compression skills after layperson training for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine, 23(3), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/102490791602300303

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