ObjectiveThe quality of external chest compressions (ECC) is of primary importance within basic life support (BLS). Recent guidelines delineate the so-called 4“-step approach” for teaching practical skills within resuscitation training guided by a certified instructor. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a “media-supported 4-step approach” for BLS training leads to equal practical performance compared to the standard 4-step approach.Materials and methodsAfter baseline testing, 220 laypersons were either trained using the widely accepted method for resuscitation training (4-step approach) or using a newly created “media-supported 4-step approach”, both of equal duration. In this approach, steps 1 and 2 were ensured via a standardised self-produced podcast, which included all of the information regarding the BLS algorithm and resuscitation skills. Participants were tested on manikins in the same mock cardiac arrest single-rescuer scenario prior to intervention, after one week and after six months with respect to ECC-performance, and participants were surveyed about the approach.ResultsParticipants (age 23 ± 11, 69% female) reached comparable practical ECC performances in both groups, with no statistical difference. Even after six months, there was no difference detected in the quality of the initial assessment algorithm or delay concerning initiation of CPR. Overall, at least 99% of the intervention group (n = 99; mean 1.5 ± 0.8; 6-point Likert scale: 1 = completely agree, 6 = completely disagree) agreed that the video provided an adequate introduction to BLS skills.ConclusionsThe “media-supported 4-step approach” leads to comparable practical ECC-performance compared to standard teaching, even with respect to retention of skills. Therefore, this approach could be useful in special educational settings where, for example, instructors’ resources are sparse or large-group sessions have to be prepared.
Background Perioperative anxiety is a major burden to patients undergoing surgeries with general anesthesia. Objective This study investigated whether a virtual operating room tour (VORT) before surgery can be used to ameliorate perioperative anxiety. Methods We employed a randomized parallel-group design with 2 study arms to compare VORT to the standard operation preparation procedure. The study included 84 patients. A validated inventory (state-trait operation anxiety-state) was used to assess perioperative state anxiety before (T1) and after (T2) surgery. In addition, trait operation anxiety was evaluated with an additional validated inventory (state-trait operation anxiety-trait). Moreover, user ratings on the usefulness of VORT were assessed with an evaluation questionnaire. Study arms were compared for perioperative state anxiety with two-tailed independent samples t tests. Subjective ratings were correlated with STOA-Trait values to investigate possible associations between perioperative anxiety with perceived usefulness. Results There were no significant differences in perioperative state anxiety between VORT and standard operation preparation procedures before and after the surgery. Nonetheless, patients’ ratings of VORT overall were positive. The tour was perceived as useful and, therefore, showed acceptance for VR use. These ratings were unrelated to the degree of perioperative anxiety. Conclusions The subjective benefit of VORT could not be explained by a reduction of perioperative anxiety. Instead, VORT appears to serve the need for information and reduce uncertainty. In addition, VORT is perceived as beneficial regardless of the age of the patients. Considering this effect and the manageable organizational and financial effort toward implementation, the general use of VORT can be recommended. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04579354; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04579354
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.