HEFT Repository

Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study.

Couper, Keith and Velho, Rochelle M and Quinn, Tom and Devrell, Anne and Lall, Ranjit and Orriss, Barry and Yeung, Joyce and Perkins, Gavin D (2018) Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study. BMJ open, 8 (2). e019009. ISSN 2044-6055. This article is available to all HEFT staff and students via ASK Discovery tool http://tinyurl.com/z795c8c by using their HEFT Athens login IDs

Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/2/e019009.long

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of training strategy on team deployment of a mechanical chest compression device.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled manikin trial.

SETTING

Large teaching hospital in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty teams, each comprising three clinicians. Participating individuals were health professionals with intermediate or advanced resuscitation training.

INTERVENTIONS

Teams were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard mechanical chest compression device training or pit-crew device training. Training interventions lasted up to 1 h. Performance was measured immediately after training in a standardised simulated cardiac arrest scenario in which teams were required to deploy a mechanical chest compression device.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and mechanical device deployment metrics, and non-technical skill performance. Outcomes were assessed using video recordings of the test scenario.

RESULTS

In relation to the primary outcome of chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression, we found that pit-crew training was not superior to standard training (0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79) vs 0.77 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82), mean difference -0.01 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.03), P=0.572). There was also no difference between groups in performance in relation to any secondary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Pit-crew training, compared with standard training, did not improve team deployment of a mechanical chest device in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN43049287; Pre-results.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This article is available to all HEFT staff and students via ASK Discovery tool http://tinyurl.com/z795c8c by using their HEFT Athens login IDs
Subjects: WD Diseases and disorders of systemic, metabolic or environmental origin > WD400 Emergency medicine
Divisions: Clinical Support > Anaesthetics
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Mrs Caroline Tranter
Date Deposited: 13 Feb 2018 14:44
Last Modified: 13 Feb 2018 14:44
URI: http://www.repository.heartofengland.nhs.uk/id/eprint/1596

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item