OBJECTIVES: Our aim for this study was to test whether visual and verbal feedback compared with instructor-led feedback improve the quality of pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). METHODS: There were 653 third-year medical students randomly assigned to practice pediatric CPR on 1 of 2 manikins (infant and adolescent; n = 344 and n = 309, respectively). They were further randomly assigned to 1 of 3 feedback groups: The instructor feedback (IF) group (n = 225) received traditional, instructor-led feedback without any additional feedback device. The device feedback (DF) group (n = 223) received real-time visual feedback from a feedback device. The instructor and device feedback (IDF) group (n = 205) received verbal feedback from an instructor who continuously reviewed the trainees' performance using the feedback device. After the training, participants' CPR performance was assessed on the same manikin while no feedback was being provided. RESULTS: For the primary outcome of total compression score, participants in the DF and IDF groups performed similarly, with both groups showing scores significantly (P , .001) better than those of the IF group. The same findings held for correct hand position and the proportion of complete release. For compression rate, the DF group was at the higher end of the guideline for 100 to 120 chest compressions per minute compared with the IF and IDF groups (both P , .001). No effect of feedback on compression depth was found. CONCLUSIONS: Chest compression performance significantly improved with both visual and verbal feedback compared with instructor-led feedback. Feedback devices should be implemented during pediatric resuscitation training to improve resuscitation performance. WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: High-quality chest compressions (CCs) require optimal hand position, adequate depth (one-third of the chest' s diameter), complete release, and a frequency of 100 to 120 CCs per minute. Feedback devices (visual or verbal) were shown to improve the quality of training, although evidence remains inconclusive. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: We provide more evidence to the topic of feedback in resuscitation trainings, including a large number of equally experienced participants, revealing that visual feedback and visual combined with verbal feedback improve CC performance compared with instructor-led training in infant and adolescent manikin settings.

No abstract

Background The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of feedback devices on visual attention and the quality of pediatric resuscitation. Methods This was a randomized cross-over simulation study at the Medical University of Vienna. Participants were students and neonatal providers performing four resuscitation scenarios with the support of feedback devices randomized. The primary outcome was the quality of resuscitation. Secondary outcomes were total dwell time (=total duration of visit time) on areas of interest and the workload of participants. Results Forty participants were analyzed. Overall, chest compression (P < 0.001) and ventilation quality were significantly better (P = 0.002) when using a feedback device. Dwell time on the feedback device was 40.1% in the ventilation feedback condition and 48.7% in the chest compression feedback condition. In both conditions, participants significantly reduced attention from the infant’s chest and mask (72.9 vs. 32.6% and 21.9 vs. 12.7%). Participants’ subjective workload increased by 3.5% (P = 0.018) and 8% (P < 0.001) when provided with feedback during a 3-min chest compression and ventilation scenario, respectively. Conclusions The quality of pediatric resuscitation significantly improved when using real-time feedback. However, attention shifted from the manikin and other equipment to the feedback device and subjective workload increased, respectively. Impact Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with feedback devices results in a higher quality of resuscitation and has the potential to lead to a better outcome for patients. Feedback devices consume attention from resuscitation providers. Feedback devices were associated with a shift of visual attention to the feedback devices and an increased workload of participants. Increased workload for providers and benefits for resuscitation quality need to be balanced for the best effect.

Background: Differences in management and outcomes of extremely preterm infants have been reported across European countries. Implementation of standardized guidelines and interventions within existing neonatal care facilities can improve outcomes of extremely preterm infants. This study evaluated whether a multifactorial educational training (MET) course in Vienna focusing on the management of extremely preterm infants had an impact on the management of extremely preterm infants in Central-Eastern European (CEE) countries.Methods: Physicians and nurses from different hospitals in CEE countries participated in a two-day MET in Vienna, Austria with theoretical lectures, bedside teaching, and simulation trainings. In order to evaluate the benefit of the workshops, participants had to complete pre- and post-workshop questionnaires, as well as follow-up questionnaires three and twelve months after the MET.Results: 162 participants from 15 CEE countries completed the two-day MET at our department. Less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) was only used by 39% (63/162) of the participants. After the MET, 80% (122/152) were planning to introduce LISA, and 66% (101/152) were planning to introduce regular simulation training, which was statistically significantly increased three and twelve months after the MET. Thirty-six percent and 57% of the participants self-reported improved outcomes three and twelve months after the MET, respectively.Conclusion: Our standardized training in Vienna promoted the implementation of different perinatal concepts including postnatal respiratory management using LISA as well as regular simulation trainings at the participants' home departments. Moreover, our MET contributed to dissemination of guidelines, promoted best-practice, and improved self-reported outcomes.

No abstract