Dataset Information

[Test to measure basic life support and defibrillation skills in primary care doctors and nurses].

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To prepare and validate a tool to measure Basic Life Support (BLS) and semi-automatic defibrillator (SAD) skills adapted for use by health professionals in Primary Care Teams (PCT). To propose an updated version and demonstrate self-sufficiency of the team to use it in a training evaluation. DESIGN:Validation of measurement tools. Study of reliability with repeated measurements after a training course. SETTING:Drassanes Primary Care Centre. Raval Sud Basic Health Area. Barcelona. Spain. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 37 voluntary resuscitators (all doctors/nurses), professional camera, medical controller, computerised mannequin, 6 evaluators. INTERVENTIONS:Test preparation methodology. Cardiff Model 3.1. IMPLEMENTATION:2 filmed series (professional+domestic), of 26-25 "station type" simulations, separated by 1 month. A training workshop between series. Retrospective evaluation of DVD recordings (5 evaluators). 2nd series scored again at 3 weeks with a blind and random order filmed version. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: VARIABLES:performances classified from worse to best execution. Psychometric analysis: Validity (content/apparent). Test-retest reliability, between-observer and sensitivity to change. RESULTS:Compared to the Cardiff test (46 items) our 83 item test contained 38(46%) new, 34(41%) modified and 11(13%) similar. Between-evaluator reliability, excellent/good in 51/62 items analysed; Within-evaluator and between-filming reliability, excellent/good in all except 1 item; the test score doubled after the training course. A version of the test according to BLS-SAD recommendations is proposed. CONCLUSIONS:On there not being useful tools available for Primary Care doctors and nurses, one has been prepared with adequate psychometric guarantees and proven self-sufficient evaluation. We propose the immediate application of the updated version for training evaluation purposes.

SUBMITTER: Casabella Abril B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7022135 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

[Test to measure basic life support and defibrillation skills in primary care doctors and nurses].

Casabella Abril Bartomeu B Lacasta Tintorer David D Clusa Gironella Thais T Perelló Bratescu Aina A García Ortega M A Dolores MA Albiach Pla Antoni A Larrea Tárrega Salomé S

Atencion primaria 20090805 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To prepare and validate a tool to measure Basic Life Support (BLS) and semi-automatic defibrillator (SAD) skills adapted for use by health professionals in Primary Care Teams (PCT). To propose an updated version and demonstrate self-sufficiency of the team to use it in a training evaluation.<h4>Design</h4>Validation of measurement tools. Study of reliability with repeated measurements after a training course.<h4>Setting</h4>Drassanes Primary Care Centre. Raval Sud Basic Health ...[more]

PMID: 19660840

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.

Dataset Information

[Test to measure basic life support and defibrillation skills in primary care doctors and nurses].

Publications

[Test to measure basic life support and defibrillation skills in primary care doctors and nurses].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure