Randomized Controlled Trial of Simulation vs. Standard Training for Teaching Medical Students High-quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Abstract

IntroductionMost medical schools teach cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during the final year in course curriculum to prepare students to manage the first minutes of clinical emergencies. Little is known regarding the optimal method of instruction for this critical skill. Simulation has been shown in similar settings to enhance performance and knowledge. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation training vs. standard manikin training for teaching medical students the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for high-quality CPR.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm study of 70 fourth-year medical students to either simulation (SIM) or standard training (STD) over an eight-month period. SIM group learned the AHA guidelines for high-quality CPR via an hour session that included a PowerPoint lecture with training on a high-fidelity simulator. STD group learned identical content using a low-fidelity Resusci Anne® CPR manikin. All students managed a simulated cardiac arrest scenario with primary outcome based on the AHA guidelines definition of high-quality CPR (specifies metrics for compression rate, depth, recoil, and compression fraction). Secondary outcome was time to emergency medical services (EMS) activation. We analyzed data via Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. Outcomes were performed on a simulated cardiac arrest case adapted from the AHA Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) SimMan® Scenario manual.ResultsStudents in the SIM group performed CPR that more closely adhered to the AHA guidelines of compression depth and compression fraction. Mean compression depth was 4.57 centimeters (cm) (95% confidence interval [CI] [4.30–4.82]) for SIM and 3.89 cm (95% CI [3.50–4.27]) for STD, p=0.02. Mean compression fraction was 0.724 (95% CI [0.699–0.751]) for SIM group and 0.679 (95% CI [0.655–0.702]) for STD, p=0.01. There was no difference for compression rate or recoil between groups. Time to EMS activation was 24.7 seconds (s) (95% CI [15.7–40.8]) for SIM group and 79.5 s (95% CI [44.8–119.6]) for STD group, p=0.007.ConclusionHigh-fidelity simulation training is superior to low-fidelity CPR manikin training for teaching fourth-year medical students implementation of high-quality CPR for chest compression depth and compression fraction.

The use of serious games as an innovative educational strategy for learning cardiopulmonary resuscitation: an integrative review

“…The experimental and quasi-experimental designs were the most frequent in this review, standing out with levels of evidence of 2 and 3, respectively. This could be related to the need to compare the effectiveness of different methodological teaching strategies regarding CPR, for the choice of better practices (35) .…”

Are Nurses at Swedish Departments of Infectious Diseases Prepared to Care for Patients With African Viral Haemorrhagic Fever? - A Survey Study

“…Simulation training for nurses gives benefits such as increased knowledge and skills and contributes to perceived readiness [29]. When comparing simulation training and standard training with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with medical students, it has been shown that simulation training is superior [32].…”

Education, Implementation, and Teams

“…325 Five studies showed improvement in CPR skills at the end of training with the use of feedback devices compared with no feedback device. 319,320,323,328,330 Two studies showed no difference in performance. 322,326 One study showed worse CPR performance at the conclusion of training, although this study has a high risk of bias because of unclear outcome definitions and the use of the audiovisual feedback system to replace an instructor.…”