4.6 Article

Training interval in cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226786

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National League for Nursing
  2. Laerdal Medical Corporation
  3. Air Force Research Laboratory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim Although evidence supports brief, frequent CPR training, optimal training intervals have not been established. The purpose of this study was to compare nursing students' CPR skills (compressions and ventilations) with 4 different spaced training intervals: daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly, each for 4 times in a row. Methods Participants were nursing students (n = 475) in the first year of their prelicensure program in 10 schools of nursing across the United States. They were randomly assigned into the 4 training intervals in each of the schools. Students were trained in CPR on a Laerdal Resusci Anne adult manikin on the Resuscitation Quality Improvement (RQI) mobile simulation station. The outcome measures were quality of compressions and ventilations as measured by the RQI program. Results Although students were all certified in Basic Life Support prior to the study, they were not able to adequately perform compressions and ventilations at pretest. Overall compression scores improved from sessions 1 to 4 in all training intervals (all p < .001), but shorter intervals (daily training) resulted in larger increases in compression scores by session 4. There were similar findings for ventilation skills, but at session 4, both daily and weekly intervals led to better skill performance. Conclusion For students and other novices learning to perform CPR, the opportunity to train on consecutive days or weeks may be beneficial: if learners are aware of specific errors in performance, it may be easier for them to correct performance and refine skills when there is less time in between practice sessions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available