Dataset Information

Assessment of laypersons' paediatric basic life support and foreign body airway obstruction management skills: a validity study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Standardised courses for laypeople in Paediatric Basic Life Support (PBLS) and Foreign Body Airway Obstruction Management (FBAOM) teach essential skills for the initiation of resuscitation by bystanders. Performance assessments are necessary to ensure that skills are acquired. We aimed to examine the validity of developed performance assessments and to determine credible pass/fail standards.

Methods

Validity evidence was gathered in a standardised simulated setting by testing participants with three different levels of PBLS/FBAOM experience: untrained laypersons, trained laypersons, and lifeguards. Two blinded raters assessed participants' performance. The reliability of test scores was analysed using generalizability theory, scores were compared across the three groups, and pass/fail-standards were established.

Results

A total of 33 participants were included. More than two raters and two cases were necessary for PBLS to achieve a reliability coefficient above 0.80, which is considered the minimally acceptable level for high-stakes certification. For FBAOM, two tests or three raters were needed. Assessment scores differed across the three groups for PBLS skills, as well as for FBAOM skills (p < 0.001). Pass levels of 74% and 55% of the maximum score for PBLS and FBAOM, respectively, were identified as the levels that best discriminated between competent and non-competent laypersons.

Conclusions

Laypersons' PBLS and FBAOM skills can be assessed in a reliable and valid way in a standardised simulated setting. However, multiple raters and scenario tests are needed to ensure sufficient reliability, which raises questions regarding the feasibility of performing certification tests for laypersons who participate in short paediatric resuscitation courses.

SUBMITTER: Hasselager A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6127933 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Retention of resuscitation skills is usually assessed at a predefined moment, which enables participants to prepare themselves, possibly introducing bias. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the retention of knowledge and skills in pediatric basic life support (PBLS) amongst 58 pediatricians and pediatric residents with an unannounced examination. Practical PBLS skills were assessed with a validated scoring instrument, theoretical knowledge with a 10-item multiple-choice test (MCQ). Participants self-assessed their PBLS capabilities using five-point Likert scales. Background data were collected with a questionnaire. Of our participants, 21% passed the practical PBLS exam: 29% failed on compressions/ventilations, 31% on other parts of the algorithm, 19% on both. Sixty-nine percent passed the theoretical test. Participants who more recently completed a PBLS course performed significantly better on the MCQ (p = 0.03). This association was less clear-cut for performance on the practical exam (p = 0.11). Older, attending pediatricians with more years of experience in pediatrics performed less well than their younger colleagues (p < 0.05). Fifty-one percent of the participants considered themselves competent in PBLS. No correlation was found between self-assessed PBLS capabilities and actual performance on the practical exam (p = 0.25).ConclusionRetention of PBLS skills appears to be poor amongst pediatricians and residents, whereas PBLS knowledge is retained somewhat better. What is Known: • Pediatricians and pediatric residents are not always competent in pediatric basic life support (PBLS) in daily practice. Poor retention of skills supposedly accounts for this incompetence. Without regular exposure, resuscitation skills usually deteriorate within 3 to 6 months after training. • Examination of resuscitation skills usually takes place after training. Also, in most studies evaluating retention of skills, participants are tested at a predefined moment. Inasmuch as participants are able to prepare themselves, these assessments do not reflect the ad hoc resuscitation capabilities of pediatricians and residents. What is New: • In this study, pediatricians and pediatric residents had to complete an unannounced PBLS exam at variable time intervals from last certification. Retention of PBLS skills was rather poor (pass rate 21%). • The PBLS skills of older, attending pediatricians with many working years in pediatrics appeared to be inferior to those of their younger colleagues.

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:BackgroundThe goal for laypersons after training in basic life support (BLS) is to act effectively in an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest situation. However, it is still unclear whether BLS training targeting laypersons at workplaces is optimal or whether other effective learning activities are possible.AimThe primary aim was to evaluate whether there were other modes of BLS training that improved learning outcome as compared with a control group, i.e. standard BLS training, six months after training, and secondarily directly after training.MethodsIn this multi-arm trial, lay participants (n = 2623) from workplaces were cluster randomised into 16 different BLS interventions, of which one, instructor-led and film-based BLS training, was classified as control and standard, with which the other 15 were compared. The learning outcome was the total score for practical skills in BLS calculated using the modified Cardiff Test.ResultsFour different training modes showed a significantly higher total score compared with standard (mean difference 2.3-2.9). The highest score was for the BLS intervention including a preparatory web-based education, instructor-led training, film-based instructions, reflective questions and a chest compression feedback device (95% CI for difference 0.9-5.0), 6 months after training.ConclusionBLS training adding several different combinations of a preparatory web-based education, reflective questions and chest compression feedback to instructor-led training and film-based instructions obtained higher modified Cardiff Test total scores 6 months after training compared with standard BLS training alone. The differences were small in magnitude and the clinical relevance of our findings needs to be further explored.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03618888. Registered August 07, 2018-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03618888.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01160-3.