Real-time feedback during basic life support training: Does it prevent skill decay?

Comparison of a virtual reality compression-only Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) course to the traditional course with content validation of the VR course - A randomized control pilot study

Introduction

Technology has been a major contributor to recent changes in education, where simulation plays a huge role by providing a unique safe environment, especially with the recent incorporation of immersive virtual reality (VR) training. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) is said to double, even triple survival from cardiac arrest, and hence it is crucial to ensure optimal acquisition and retention of these skills. In this study, we aim to compare a VR CPR teaching program to current teaching methods with content validation of the VR course.

Methods

A randomized single-blinded simulation-based pilot study where 26 participants underwent baseline assessment of their CPR skills using a validated checklist and Laerdal QCPR®. Participants were randomly allocated and underwent their respective courses. This was followed by a final assessment and a questionnaire for content validation, knowledge and confidence. The data was analysed using STATA 16.2 to determine the standardized mean difference using paired and unpaired t-test.

Results

Subjective assessment using the checklist showed statistically significant improvement in the overall scores of both groups (traditional group mean improved from 6.92 to 9.61 p-value 0.0005, VR group from 6.61 to 8.53 p-value 0.0016). However, no statistically significant difference was noted between the final scores in both the subjective and objective assessments. As for the questionnaire, knowledge and confidence seemed to improve equally. Finally, the content validation showed statistically significant improvement in ease of use (mean score 3 to 4.23 p-value of 0.0144), while for content, positivity of experience, usefulness and appropriateness participants showed similar satisfaction before and after use.

Conclusion

This pilot study suggests that VR teaching could deliver CPR skills in an attractive manner, with no inferiority in acquisition of these skills compared to traditional methods. To corroborate these findings, we suggest a follow-up study with a larger sample size after adding ventilation and Automated External Defibrillator (AED) skills to the VR course with re-examination after 3–6 months to test retention of the skills.

Randomized trial of the chest compressions effectiveness comparing 3 feedback CPR devices and standard basic life support by nurses

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of mortality and serious neurological morbidity in Europe. We aim to investigate the effect of 3 cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices on effectiveness of chest compression during CPR.

METHODS

This was prospective, randomized, crossover, controlled trial. Following a brief didactic session, 140 volunteer nurses inexperienced with feedback CPR devices attempted chest compression on a manikin using 3 CPR feedback devices (TrueCPR, CPR-Ezy, and iCPR) and standard basic life support (BLS) without feedback.

RESULTS

Comparison of standard BLS, TrueCPR, CPR-Ezy, and iCPR showed differences in the effectiveness of chest compression (compressions with correct pressure point, correct depth, and sufficient decompression), which are, respectively, 37.5%, 85.6%, 39.5%, and 33.4%; compression depth (44.6 vs 54.5 vs 45.6 vs 39.6 mm); and compression rate (129.4 vs 110.2 vs 101.5 vs 103.5 min(-1)).

CONCLUSIONS

During the simulated resuscitation scenario, only TrueCPR significantly affected the increased effectiveness compression compared with standard BLS, CPR-Ezy, and iCPR. Further studies are required to confirm the results in clinical practice.