背景:一般来说,心肺复苏(CPR)技能随着时间的推移而大幅下降。通过将基于网络的自我调节学习与实践相结合,混合培训可以是一种时间和资源高效的方法,使个人能够在方便的时候获得或更新CPR技能。然而,与传统方法相比,很少有研究评估混合CPR进修训练的有效性.
目的:本研究通过6个月和12个月的进修课程与CPR能力指标调查并比较了传统和混合CPR训练的有效性。
方法:本研究招募了来自自动体外除颤器捐赠项目的年龄≥18岁的参与者。根据接受的心肺复苏培训和进修培训的形式,将参与者分为4组:(1)最初的传统培训(30分钟的讲师指导,动手课程)和6个月的传统进修培训(传统6组),(2)初始传统培训和6个月的混合进修培训(18分钟的电子学习模块;Mixed6组),(3)初始传统训练和12个月混合进修训练(Mixed12组),(4)初始混合训练和6个月混合进修训练(Blended6组)。初次培训后立即评估CPR知识和表现。对于每个小组,在最初的培训之后,但在进修培训之前,在12个月和24个月时进行学习效果评估.使用包含15道多项选择题的笔试评估CPR知识,和CPR表现是通过审查员评估的技能测试和通过人体模型反馈客观评估的。采用广义估计方程模型分析心肺复苏能力指标的变化。
结果:这项研究招募了1163名参与者(平均年龄41.82,SD11.6岁;n=725,62.3%为女性),332(28.5%),270(23.2%),258(22.2%),和303(26.1%)参与者在混合6,传统6,混合12和混合6组,分别。在初始训练后的知识获取方面没有观察到显著的组间差异(P=0.23)。所有小组均符合高质量CPR技能的标准(即,平均按压深度:5-6厘米;平均按压率:100-120次/分钟;胸部后坐率:>80%);但是,较高比例(98/303,32.3%)的接受混合培训的参与者最初表现出高质量的CPR技能.在12个月和24个月时,所有群体的心肺复苏技能都有所下降,但是Mixed12组的下降幅度明显更高,而其他组间差异不显著.这一发现表明,频繁的再培训可以保持高质量的CPR技能,混合进修培训与传统的进修培训一样有效。
结论:我们的研究结果表明,6个月的心肺复苏进修培训课程对于保持高质量的心肺复苏技能更有效,作为复习者,自学电子模块与教师主导的课程一样有效。虽然混合学习方法是成本和资源有效的,诸如参与者人口统计等因素,培训环境,必须考虑参与程度,以最大限度地发挥这种方法的潜力。
背景:IGOGONCT05659108;https://www.cgmh-igogo.tw.
BACKGROUND: Generally, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills decline substantially over time. By combining web-based self-regulated learning with hands-on practice, blended training can be a time- and resource-efficient approach enabling individuals to acquire or refresh CPR skills at their convenience. However, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of blended CPR refresher training compared with that of the traditional method.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated and compared the effectiveness of traditional and blended CPR training through 6-month and 12-month refresher sessions with CPR ability indicators.
METHODS: This study recruited participants aged ≥18 years from the Automated External Defibrillator Donation Project. The participants were divided into 4 groups based on the format of the CPR training and refresher training received: (1) initial traditional training (a 30-minute instructor-led, hands-on session) and 6-month traditional refresher training (Traditional6 group), (2) initial traditional training and 6-month blended refresher training (an 18-minute e-learning module; Mixed6 group), (3) initial traditional training and 12-month blended refresher training (Mixed12 group), and (4) initial blended training and 6-month blended refresher training (Blended6 group). CPR knowledge and performance were evaluated immediately after initial training. For each group, following initial training but before refresher training, a learning effectiveness assessment was conducted at 12 and 24 months. CPR knowledge was assessed using a written test with 15 multiple-choice questions, and CPR performance was assessed through an examiner-rated skill test and objectively through manikin feedback. A generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze changes in CPR ability indicators.
RESULTS: This study recruited 1163 participants (mean age 41.82, SD 11.6 years; n=725, 62.3% female), with 332 (28.5%), 270 (23.2%), 258 (22.2%), and 303 (26.1%) participants in the Mixed6, Traditional6, Mixed12, and Blended6 groups, respectively. No significant between-group difference was observed in knowledge acquisition after initial training (P=.23). All groups met the criteria for high-quality CPR skills (ie, average compression depth: 5-6 cm; average compression rate: 100-120 beats/min; chest recoil rate: >80%); however, a higher proportion (98/303, 32.3%) of participants receiving blended training initially demonstrated high-quality CPR skills. At 12 and 24 months, CPR skills had declined in all the groups, but the decline was significantly higher in the Mixed12 group, whereas the differences were not significant between the other groups. This finding indicates that frequent retraining can maintain high-quality CPR skills and that blended refresher training is as effective as traditional refresher training.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that 6-month refresher training sessions for CPR are more effective for maintaining high-quality CPR skills, and that as refreshers, self-learning e-modules are as effective as instructor-led sessions. Although the blended learning approach is cost and resource effective, factors such as participant demographics, training environment, and level of engagement must be considered to maximize the potential of this approach.
BACKGROUND: IGOGO NCT05659108; https://www.cgmh-igogo.tw.