We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website Learn more

Sep 11, 2017

Resuscitation 2017

CAN WE TEACH BLS IN A DIFFERENT WAY? Comparative study between the standard course and a shorten version with a preceding online phase.

;

Pere Subirana;

Lorena Molina;

Francesc Carmona;

Jaime Carballedo;

Arich Montasell;

Salvador Quintana;

Manel Cerdà;

Xavier de Balanzó

teach

bls

timing

Abstract

Abstract

thumbnail

Keywords

teach

bls

timing

Abstract

CAN WE TEACH BLS IN A DIFFERENT WAY? Comparative study between the standard course and a shorten version with a preceding online phase. Introduction: The use of e-learning (as Moodle) allow candidates to access to theory and practical demos previously to the face-to-face course. The aim of this study is to compare the standard BLS teaching methodology (control) vs blended learning with a shortened face to face course (intervention), and determine if we can get high quality CPR performance. Methods: An experimental study was designed where lay students and staff of a university school were allocated to the control or the intervention group. Randomization was done by the own participants choosing the day of the course. Participants in the control group had the BLS manual one week prior of the course, meanwhile participants in the intervention group had to complete some tasks with the help of the BLS manual and see some videos explaining the two first steps of the ERC teaching methodology, during the previous week. Laerdal QCPR mannequins and software was used. Mean and standard deviation or percents were used to describe data and Chi square test or Student’s T test or Mann Whitney’s U test to compare data. Results: 56 out of 119 candidates were allocated in the intervention group. No significant differences between age, sex were observed between groups. QCPR global score was 70,5%(SD:23,0%) in the control group vs 68,4% (SD:21,4%) in the intervention group (p=0,618). Mean chest compression depth was 50,34 vs 50,21 (p=0,935), mean compressions rate 105,52 vs 107,90 (p=0,401). Mean breathing volume 759 ml vs 642 ml (p=0.054) Conclusions: No difference was found in high quality CPR between both teaching methods. New studies with more sample size would be recommended to confirm these results.

Discover over 20,000 new abstracts, posters and presentations from leading academic conferences every month. Stay on top of the latest findings, methodologies and discussions happening in your research field around the world.

Company

Legal

Follow us

© Copyright 2019 Morressier GmbH. All rights reserved.

© Copyright 2019 Morressier GmbH.
All rights reserved.