Search

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of cognitive aid use during resuscitation with no use of cognitive aids on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and performance. Methods: This systematic review followed the PICOST format. All randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies evaluating cognitive aid use during (simulated) resuscitation were included in any setting. Unpublished studies were excluded. We did not include studies that reported cognitive aid use during training for resuscitation alone. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until July 2019 (updated August 2022, November 2023, and 23 April 2024). We did not search trial registries. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I), and certainty of evidence (using GRADE) were performed by two researchers. PRISMA reporting standards were followed, and registration (PROSPERO CRD42020159162, version 19 July 2022) was performed. No funding has been obtained. Results: The literature search identified 5029 citations. After removing 512 duplicates, reviewing the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles yielded 103 articles for full-text review. Hand-searching identified 3 more studies for full-text review. Of these, 29 studies were included in the final analysis. No clinical studies involving patients were identified. The review was limited to indirect evidence from simulation studies only. The results are presented in five different populations: healthcare professionals managing simulated resuscitations in neonates, children, adult advanced life support, and other emergencies; as well as lay providers managing resuscitations. Main outcomes were adherence to protocol or process, adherence to protocol or process assessed by performance score, CPR performance and retention, and feasibility of chatbot guidance. The risk of bias assessment ranged from low to high. Studies in neonatal, paediatric and adult life support delivered by healthcare professionals showed benefits of using cognitive aids, however, some studies evaluating resuscitations by lay providers reported undesirable effects. The performance of a meta-analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. The certainty of evidence was rated as moderate to very low due to serious indirectness, (very) serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and (very) serious imprecision. Conclusion: Because of the very low certainty evidence from simulation studies, we suggest that cognitive aids should be used by healthcare professionals during resuscitation. In contrast, we do not suggest use of cognitive aids for lay providers, based on low certainty evidence.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), compared with other instructional methods, for basic and advanced life support training. Methods: This systematic review was part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) and reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023376751). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS were searched from inception to January 16, 2024. We included all published studies comparing virtual or augmented reality to other methods of resuscitation training evaluating knowledge acquisition and retention, skills acquisition and retention, skill performance in real resuscitation, willingness to help, bystander CPR rate, and patients’ survival. Results: Our initial literature search identified 1807 citations. After removing duplicates, reviewing the titles and abstracts of the remaining 1301 articles, full text review of 74 articles and searching references lists of relevant articles, 19 studies were identified for analysis. AR was used in 4 studies to provide real-time feedback during CPR, demonstrating improved CPR performance compared to groups trained with no feedback, but no difference when compared to other sources of CPR feedback. VR use in resuscitation training was explored in 15 studies, with the majority of studies that assessed CPR skills favoring other interventions over VR, or showing no difference between groups. Conclusion: Augmented and virtual reality can be used to support resuscitation training of lay people and healthcare professionals, however current evidence does not clearly demonstrate a consistent benefit when compared to other methods of training.

Aim: This scoping review aimed to identify potential variables influencing healthcare provider’s perceived workload or stress when performing resuscitation on patients in cardiac arrest. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to identify studies published prior to February 1, 2024. We used a PECO format for this review: the population were healthcare providers performing resuscitation during simulated or real cardiac arrest; the exposure was the presence of any factor that could impact perceived workload or stress; and the comparator was the absence of any specific factor. Outcome variables, including self-reported questionnaires, objective and subjective measures, and any variables identified to have impact on workload and/or stress were extracted. Results: Of the initially identified 10,165 studies, 24 studies (20 RCTs, 2 quasi-experimental studies and 2 observational studies) were ultimately included. Among them, a wide variety of factors influencing perceived stress or workload were identified. High heterogeneity among studies was observed. We categorized factors into the following entities: (1) team composition and roles; (2) telemedicine; (3) workflow; (4) tools; (5) cognitive aids; (6) presence of friends and family, and (7) provider experience and exposure, representing the modifiable factors for future interventions. Conclusion: This scoping review provides an overview of factors influencing workload and stress during real and simulated cardiac arrest resuscitation. These findings highlight the need for targeted strategies to effectively manage workload and stress during resuscitation.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of scripted debriefing relative to no use of script during debriefing in resuscitation training. Methods: This scoping review was undertaken as part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) and based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension for scoping review. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS were searched from inception to January 2024. We included all published studies comparing scripted debriefing vs non-scripted debriefing evaluating patient outcomes, behaviour change of learners, learning outcomes for learners and cognitive load and teaching quality for instructors. Results: Our initial literature search identified 1238 citations. After removing 552 duplicates, reviewing the titles and abstracts of the remaining 686 articles yielded 11 for full-text review. Of these, six articles were selected for inclusion in the final analysis. The six studies described debriefing scripts varying in content, framework, scripted language and the integration of objective data. Scripted debriefing improved CPR performance, team leadership skills and knowledge acquisition, but showed no difference in teamwork performance compared to non-scripted debriefing. Scripted debriefing also improved debriefing quality and decreased cognitive load of the instructor during resuscitation training. Conclusion: The use of a debriefing script during resuscitation education can improve CPR performance, team leader performance, knowledge acquisition and reduce the debriefer’s cognitive load. Future research should explore how debriefing scripts can be designed to optimize learning outcomes.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of Peyton’s four-step approach for teaching resuscitation skills with alternative approaches. Methods: For this systematic review, we followed the PICOST format (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) using Peyton’s four-step approach as the standard. We included all studies analyzing skills training related to resuscitation and First Aid in any educational setting. Eligible were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (non-randomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, published conference abstracts, and case series where n ≥ 5). We excluded unpublished results (e.g. trial protocols), commentaries, editorials, reviews. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until November 10, 2020 (updated November 25, 2022) for publications in all languages as long as there was an English abstract. Titles and abstracts of the papers retrieved were screened, and eligible publications were analysed in full text. From the final set of papers, data were extracted into a spreadsheet, subsequently risk of bias assessment was performed (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I), and the certainty of evidence (using GRADE) for each paper was assessed. Screening of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and assessment of certainty of evidence were all performed by two independent researchers. This review was conducted in adherence with PRISMA standards and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023377398). Results: Overall, the search identified 2,574 studies from which 17 were included in the final analysis (14 RCTs, and 3 non-RCTs). The studies involved a total of 2,906 participants from various populations (from lay persons to health care professionals) and analysed nine different resuscitation skills being taught (ranging from chest compressions to needle cricotomy). The alternative teaching approaches ranged from two-steps to five-steps with various modifications of single steps. High methodological and clinical heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis from being conducted. The risk of bias assessment showed considerable variation between the studies ranging from ‘low’ to ‘serious’. Across all studies, certainty of evidence was rated as very low due to imprecision and inconsistency. Overall, 14 out of 17 studies showed no difference in skill acquisition or retention when comparing Peyton’s four steps to other stepwise approaches. Conclusions: Very low certainty evidence suggest that Peyton’s four-step approach was not more effective in resuscitation skills training compared to alternative approaches. Funding: None.

Aim: Advanced life support courses have a clear educational impact; however, it is important to determine whether participation of one or more members of the resuscitation team in an accredited advanced life support course improves in-hospital cardiac arrest patient survival outcomes. Methods: We searched EMBASE.com, Medline, Cochrane and CINAHL from inception to 1 November 2022. Included studies were randomised or non-randomised interventional studies assessing the impact of attendance at accredited life support courses on patient outcomes. Accredited life support courses were classified into 3 contexts: Advanced Life Support (ALS), Neonatal Resuscitation Training (NRT), and Helping Babies Breathe (HBB). Existing systematic reviews were identified for each of the contexts and an adolopment process was pursued. Appropriate risk of bias assessment tools were used across all outcomes. When meta-analysis was appropriate a random-effects model was used to produce a summary of effect sizes for each outcome. Results: Of 2714 citations screened, 19 studies (1 ALS; 7 NRT; 11 HBB) were eligible for inclusion. Three systematic reviews which satisfied AMSTAR-2 criteria for methodological quality, included 16 of the studies we identified in our search. Among adult patients all outcomes including return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge and survival to 30 days were consistently better with accredited ALS training. Among neonatal patients there were reductions in stillbirths and early neonatal mortality. Conclusion: These results support the recommendation that accredited advanced life support courses, specifically Advanced Life Support, Neonatal Resuscitation Training, and Helping Babies Breathe improve patient outcomes.

Whilst CPR training is widely recommended, quality of performance is infrequently explored. We evaluated whether a checklist can be an adequate tool for chest compression quality assessment in schoolchildren, compared with a real-time software. This observational study (March 2019–2020) included 104 schoolchildren with no previous CPR training (11–17 years old, 66 girls, 84 primary schoolchildren, 20 high schoolchildren). Simultaneous evaluations of CPR quality were performed using an observational checklist and real-time software. High-quality CPR was determined as a combination of 70% correct maneuvers in compression rate (100–120/min), depth (5–6 cm), and complete release, using a real-time software and three positive performance in skills using a checklist. We adjusted a multivariate logistic regression model for age, sex, and BMI. We found moderate to high agreement percentages in quality of CPR performance (rate: 68.3%, depth: 79.8%, and complete release: 91.3%) between a checklist and real-time software. Only 38.5% of schoolchildren (~14 years-old, ~54.4 kg, and ~22.1 kg/m2) showed high-quality CPR. High-quality CPR was more often performed by older schoolchildren (OR = 1.43, 95%IC:1.09–1.86), and sex was not an independent factor (OR = 1.26, 95%IC:0.52–3.07). For high-quality CPR in schoolchildren, a checklist showed moderate to high agreement with real-time software. Better performance was associated with age regardless of sex and BMI.

The knowledge, skills and attitudes taught on Advanced Life Support (ALS) courses are an important learning requirement for healthcare professionals who are involved with the care of acutely unwell patients. It is essential that the course design and delivery is appropriately planned to ensure that it optimises the learning opportunities for all learners. This paper offers a narrative review of how the application of educational theory has positively influenced the evolution of ALS courses since their inception in the late twentieth century. By embracing and understanding the relevant educational theories, the ALS course design has transformed from a predominantly lecture-based and behaviourist approach, to a more participative and social constructivist approach to learning. In addition, the advent of smarter technology and the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic have facilitated a more connectivist approach to learning. It can therefore be demonstrated that the ALS course is influenced by a combination of theoretical approaches and provides a diverse framework of teaching and learning strategies that cater for many individual learning styles. Any further evolution and development of the course should be based upon contemporary educational theory to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.

The data presented in this article are supplementary data related to the research article entitled “The Copenhagen Tool: A research tool for evaluation of BLS educational interventions” (Jensen et al., 2019). We present the following supplementary materials and data: 1) a standardized scenario used to introduce the test for gathering data on internal structure and additional response process; 2) test sheets used for rating test participant via video recordings; 3) interview-guide for collecting additional response process data; 4) items deemed relevant but not essential for laypersons, first responders and health personnel in the modified Delphi consensus process; 5) inter-rater reliability values for raters using the essential items of the tool to evaluate test participants via video recordings; 6) main themes from coding interviews with raters; 7) comparison of rater results and manikin software output.

Abstract Sudden out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest is the third leading cause of death in industrialized nations. Many of these lives could be saved if bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation rates were better. “All citizens of the world can save a life—CHECK—CALL—COMPRESS.” With these words, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation launched the 2019 global “World Restart a Heart” initiative to increase public awareness and improve the rates of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and overall survival for millions of victims of cardiac arrest globally. All participating organizations were asked to train and to report the numbers of people trained and reached. Overall, social media impact and awareness reached up to 206 million people, and >5.4 million people were trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation worldwide in 2019. Tool kits and information packs were circulated to 194 countries worldwide. Our simple and unified global message, “CHECK—CALL—COMPRESS,” will save hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide and will further enable many policy makers around the world to take immediate and sustainable action in this most important healthcare issue and initiative.