Peer video feedback builds basic life support skills: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.
<h4>Introduction</h4>Training Basic Life Support saves lives. However, current BLS training approaches are time-consuming and costly. Alternative cost-efficient and effective training methods are highly needed. The present study evaluated whether a video-feedback supported peer-guided Ba...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/ee23d1e793f64364a6f5a00c1b860d9f |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | <h4>Introduction</h4>Training Basic Life Support saves lives. However, current BLS training approaches are time-consuming and costly. Alternative cost-efficient and effective training methods are highly needed. The present study evaluated whether a video-feedback supported peer-guided Basic Life Support training approach achieves similar practical performance as a standard instructor-guided training in laypersons.<h4>Methods</h4>In a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, 288 first-year medical students were randomized to two study arms with different Basic Life Support training methods: 1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) or 2) a Peer Video Feedback (PVF). Outcome parameters were objective data for Basic Life Support performance (compression depth and rate) from a resuscitation manikin with recording software as well as overall Basic Life Support performance and subjective confidence. Non-inferiority margins (Δ) for these outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with Standard Instructor Feedback. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority.<h4>Results</h4>Results confirmed non-inferiority of Peer Video Feedback to Standard Instructor Feedback for compression depth (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 2.9%; 95% CI: -8.2% to 14.1%; Δ = -19%), overall Basic Life Support performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 6.7%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 14.3%; Δ = -27%) and subjective confidence for CPR performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.18-0.17; Δ = -0.5) and emergency situations (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.21-0.18; Δ = -0.5). Results for compression rate were inconclusive.<h4>Discussion</h4>Peer Video Feedback achieves comparable results as standard instructor-based training methods. It is an easy-to-apply and cost-efficient alternative to standard Basic Life Support training methods. To improve performance with respect to compression rate, additional implementation of a metronome is recommended. |
|---|