|
|
Received: 30 July 2018 Revised: 18 September 2018 Accepted: 23 October 2018 DOI: 10.1002/mds3.10020
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A comparison of commercially available compression feedback devices in novice and experienced healthcare practitioners: A prospective randomized simulation study Terri L. Davis1,2 | Adam Hoffman3 | Amir Vahedian‐Azimi4 | Kori L. Brewer5 | Andrew C. Miller1,4,5 1 West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia
Abstract
2
Background: Guidelines note the importance of chest compression components in‐
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida 3
David and Jo Ann Shaw Center for Simulation Training and Education for Patient Safety (STEPS), West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia 4
The MORZAK Collaborative, Greenville, North Carolina
5
Department of Emergency Medicine, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, North Carolina Correspondence Andrew C. Miller, Department of Emergency Medicine, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC. Email:
[email protected]; millerandr17@ ecu.edu Funding information This project was funded in part by the American Medical Association Foundation (Grant # 10070069). Simulation equipment, logistical support and time were generously provided by the Simulation Training and Education for Patient Safety (STEPS) Center at West Virginia University.
cluding rate, depth, no‐flow time and chest recoil. Audio‐visual feedback (AVF) tech‐ nologies are included in the American Heart Association’s training videos and loosely recommended by the 2015 guidelines. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of 3 compression AVF devices compared to standard compressions. Methods: Prospective simulation study of 118 subjects randomized into 4 groups: TrueCPR™, Pocket CPR™, CPR RsQ Assist® and Control. The SimMan® 3G simulator recorded compression total, rate, depth, recoil, no‐flow time and flow fraction during 6 min of continuous compressions. Results: Compression number and rate were similar, and depth was poor across all groups, but TrueCPR™ and PocketCPR™ demonstrated statically (not clinically) sig‐ nificant improvements compared to control (p = 0.024) and CPR RsQ Assist® groups (p
