Dataset Information

Peers versus professional training of basic life support in Syria: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Peer training has been identified as a useful tool for delivering undergraduate training in basic life support (BLS) which is fundamental as an initial response in cases of emergency. This study aimed to (1) Evaluate the efficacy of peer-led model in basic life support training among medical students in their first three years of study, compared to professional-led training and (2) To assess the efficacy of the course program and students' satisfaction of peer-led training.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial with blinded assessors was conducted on 72 medical students from the pre-clinical years (1st to 3rd years in Syria) at Syrian Private University. Students were randomly assigned to peer-led or to professional-led training group for one-day-course of basic life support skills. Sixty-four students who underwent checklist based assessment using objective structured clinical examination design (OSCE) (practical assessment of BLS skills) and answered BLS knowledge checkpoint-questionnaire were included in the analysis.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in delivering BLS skills to medical students in practical (P?=?0.850) and BLS knowledge questionnaire outcomes (P?=?0.900). Both groups showed statistically significant improvement from pre- to post-course assessment with significant statistical difference in both practical skills and theoretical knowledge (P-Value ConclusionPeer-led training of basic life support for medical students was beneficial and it provided a quality of education which was as effective as training conducted by professionals. This method is applicable and desirable especially in poor-resource countries and in crisis situation.

SUBMITTER: Abbas F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6006697 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Peers versus professional training of basic life support in Syria: a randomized controlled trial.

Abbas Fatima F Sawaf Bisher B Hanafi Ibrahem I Hajeer Mohammad Younis MY Zakaria Mhd Ismael MI Abbas Wafaa W Alabdeh Fadi F Ibrahim Nazir N

BMC medical education 20180618 1

<h4>Background</h4>Peer training has been identified as a useful tool for delivering undergraduate training in basic life support (BLS) which is fundamental as an initial response in cases of emergency. This study aimed to (1) Evaluate the efficacy of peer-led model in basic life support training among medical students in their first three years of study, compared to professional-led training and (2) To assess the efficacy of the course program and students' satisfaction of peer-led training.<h4 ...[more]

PMID: 29914441

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSerious games enrich simulation-based health care trainings and improve knowledge, skills, and self-confidence of learners while entertaining them.ObjectiveA platform which can combine performance data from a basic life support (BLS) serious game app and hands-on data based on the same scoring system is not available in the market. The aim of this study was to create such a platform and investigate whether performance evaluation of BLS trainings would be more objective compared to conventional Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) examinations if these evaluations were carried out with the platform which combines OSCE scoring criteria with sensor data retrieved from the simulator's sensors.MethodsParticipants were 25 volunteers (11 men [44.0%] and 14 [56.0] women) among Ac?badem Mehmet Ali Ayd?nlar University students without prior knowledge of the BLS protocol. A serious game module has been created for teaching learners the European Resuscitation Council Basic Life Support 2015 protocol. A second module called the hands-on module was designed for educators. This module includes a checklist used for BLS OSCE examinations and can retrieve sensor data such as compression depth, compression frequency, and ventilation volume from the manikin (CPR Lilly; 3B Scientific GmbH) via Bluetooth. Data retrieved from the sensors of the manikin enable educators to evaluate learners in a more objective way. Performance data retrieved from the serious gaming module have been combined with the results of the hands-on module. Data acquired from the hands-on module have also been compared with the results of conventional OSCE scores of the participants, which were obtained by watching the videos of the same trainings.ResultsParticipants were considered successful in the game if they scored 80/100 or above. Overall, participants scored 80 or above in an average of 1.4 (SD 0.65) trials. The average BLS serious game score was 88.3/100 (SD 5.17) and hands-on average score was 70.7/100 (SD 17.3), whereas the OSCE average score was 84.4/100 (SD 12.9). There was no statistically significant correlation between success on trials (score ?80/100), serious game, hands-on training app, and OSCE scores (Spearman rho test, P>.05). The mean BLS serious game score of the participants was 88.3/100 (SD 5.17), whereas their mean hands-on training app score was 70.7/100 (SD 17.3) and OSCE score was 84.4/100 (SD 12.9).ConclusionsAlthough scoring criteria for OSCE and hands-on training app were identical, OSCE scores were 17% higher than hands-on training app scores. After analyzing the difference of scores between hands-on training app and OSCE, it has been revealed that these differences originate from scoring parameters such as compression depth, compression frequency, and ventilation volume. These data suggest that evaluation of BLS trainings would be more objective if these evaluations were carried out with the modality, which combines visual OSCE scoring criteria with sensor data retrieved from the simulator's sensors.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04533893; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04533893.

Project description:IntroductionTraining 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsResults 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.DiscussionPeer 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.

Project description:Most Medicare patients seeking emergency medical transport are treated by ambulance providers trained in advanced life support (ALS). Evidence supporting the superiority of ALS over basic life support (BLS) is limited, but some studies suggest ALS may harm patients.To compare outcomes after ALS and BLS in out-of-hospital medical emergencies.Observational study with adjustment for propensity score weights and instrumental variable analyses based on county-level variations in ALS use.Traditional Medicare.20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from nonrural counties between 2006 and 2011 with major trauma, stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or respiratory failure.Neurologic functioning and survival to 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years.Except in cases of AMI, patients showed superior unadjusted outcomes with BLS despite being older and having more comorbidities. In propensity score analyses, survival to 90 days among patients with trauma, stroke, and respiratory failure was higher with BLS than ALS (6.1 percentage points [95% CI, 5.4 to 6.8 percentage points] for trauma; 7.0 percentage points [CI, 6.2 to 7.7 percentage points] for stroke; and 3.7 percentage points [CI, 2.5 to 4.8 percentage points] for respiratory failure). Patients with AMI did not exhibit differences in survival at 30 days but had better survival at 90 days with ALS (1.0 percentage point [CI, 0.1 to 1.9 percentage points]). Neurologic functioning favored BLS for all diagnoses. Results from instrumental variable analyses were broadly consistent with propensity score analyses for trauma and stroke, showed no survival differences between BLS and ALS for respiratory failure, and showed better survival at all time points with BLS than ALS for patients with AMI.Only Medicare beneficiaries from nonrural counties were studied.Advanced life support is associated with substantially higher mortality for several acute medical emergencies than BLS.National Science Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and National Institutes of Health.

Dataset Information

Peers versus professional training of basic life support in Syria: a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Peers versus professional training of basic life support in Syria: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets