Archived Publications High-Quality CPR: Breathing New Life into Your Tra | Page 10

Why Is High-Quality CPR So Difficult
to Master and Retain?
• Most CPR training programs are infrequent,
which results in quick deterioration of skills that
are taught (Meaney et al., 2013).
• Instructor-led CPR training may not be effective
for learning basic CPR skills or retention of
these skills (Kardong-Edgren et al., 2010).
• Students often fail to develop adequate skills
during CPR training—especially in the areas of
compression rate, compression depth, and
ventilation rate. (Kardong-Edgren et al., 2012)
• Providers are unable to retain CPR skills
without practice (Oermann, Kardong-Edgren,
and Odom-Maryon, 2011)
Some Solutions to the Problem
A study by Kardong-Edgren et al. (2010), addressed
several recommendations that were made in an
American Heart Association expert panel. The purpose
of their study was to compare a computer-based CPR
course that included VAM (voice assisted manikin)
feedback (HeartCode ® BLS) with an instructor-led
course (IL) in terms of compression rate and depth,
correct hand placement, ventilation frequency and
volume on 604 nursing students across 10 nursing
schools. While they found no difference between the
two methodologies on compression rate, “students
who had the HeartCode course and practiced CPR on
VAMs had significantly more compressions with
adequate depth (p < 0.0001) and ventilations with
adequate volume (p < 0.0001) than did students trained
by instructors (p. 1023).”
10
A few other studies found similar results.
• Niles, Sutton, Donoghue, and Kalsi (2009) found
that refresher training with a portable manikin/
defibrillator system resulted in significantly
shorter times for proficiency in CPR.
• Mpotosa, De Weverb, and Cleymanse (2013)
found that short self-learning CPR sessions
with a training video and computerized voice
feedback manikin training was very successful
in learning effective CPR.
• Diez, Rodriguez-Diez, and Nagore (2013) in a
study of 2nd year medical students found that
VAM participants (as opposed to IL)
performed more accurately in terms of hand
position and produced better compression
rates. Cost reduction and time saving for
instructors was also mentioned.
In conclusion, the research is clearly indicating that
more frequent and more automated training can
improve resuscitation skills.
HealthStream E-Book: High-Quality CPR: Breathing New Life into Your Training Program