Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is critical to increasing survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the percentage of cases in which an individual receives bystander CPR is actually low, at only 35% to 40% globally. Preparing lay responders to recognize the signs of sudden cardiac arrest, call 9-1-1, and perform CPR in public and private locations is crucial to increasing survival from this public health problem. The objective of this scientific statement is to summarize the most recent published evidence about the lay responder experience of training, responding, and dealing with the residual impact of witnessing an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The scientific statement focuses on the experience-based literature of actual responders, which includes barriers to responding, experiences of doing CPR, use of an automated external defibrillator, the impact of dispatcher-assisted CPR, and the potential for postevent psychological sequelae. The large body of qualitative and observational studies identifies several gaps in crucial knowledge that, if targeted, could increase the likelihood that those who are trained in CPR will act. We suggest using the experience of actual responders to inform more contextualized training, including the implications of performing CPR on a family member, dispelling myths about harm, training and litigation, and recognition of the potential for psychologic sequelae after the event.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) training in schools are mandated in the Ontario high school curriculum. We surveyed schools to understand the scope of this training, including its barriers and facilitators. We recruited 120 (58.5%) elementary, 25 (12.2%) middle, and 60 (29.3%) high schools. Almost 60% (120 of 200) provided staff with CPR training, but only 56% (27 of 48) of high schools trained students. Major barriers included lack of funding, time, and trainers. Despite governmentmandated curriculum, only 56% of high schools offer CPR and AED training. More research is needed to understand the barriers to implementing this lifesaving training.

Introduction: While training in the practice of resuscitation is standardized by AHA guidelines and ACLS protocols, training in resuscitation science research has generally relied on mentorship by current researchers. Formal research-focused training programs in resuscitation science exist but the nature of such programs is not well known. We sought to determine the current state of graduate or professional-level research-focused programs in adult resuscitation science using scoping review methodology. Methods: We conducted an online web search for the phrases “resuscitation science education”, “resuscitation science training”, “resuscitation medicine education”, and “resuscitation medicine training” in May 2020. Entries were screened for relevance by their title and web text by two independent researchers. Entries were excluded if they did not contain a sizable research foundation or major project component for students. After the screening process, entries were analyzed descriptively and thematically categorized by aspects of program delivery. Results: We identified 16 programs that satisfied all inclusion criteria, consisting of 9 instructional programs and 7 research fellowships. Instructional programs were divided between stand-alone programs (4) or electives/add-ons within existing degrees (5). These programs were highly varied in their research requirements with some requiring minimal academic output. Electives/add-ons within existing degrees were generally shorter in length with most averaging only 4 weeks to completion. Two programs offered programs discussing pre-hospital, in-hospital, and post-hospital considerations for patients/caregivers and/or clinicians. Only one stand-alone program was degree-granting. Research fellowships generally varied between 1-2 years. The vast majority of all programs were limited to those with a clinical background, with emphasis on physicians specializing in emergency medicine. Conclusion: There is a relative lack of standardized research-focused training programs within resuscitation science. Moreover, existing programs tend to be constrained to those with a clinical background, presenting a barrier of entry for non-clinicians.