Standard basic life support training of the European Resuscitation Council versus blended training: a randomized trial of a new teaching method
Castillo J, Cerdà Vila M, De Balanzó Fernández X, Quintana Riera S, Ferrés-Amat, Elvira, Rodríguez Higueras E
Affiliation of the authors
Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona. Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain. Consell Català de Resuscitació . Barcelona, Spain. Servicio Oral y Maxilofacial del Servició de Odontología Pediátrica. Hospital de Nens de Barcelona. Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. Enfermería en la Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain.
Castillo J, Cerdà Vila M, De Balanzó Fernández X, Quintana Riera S, Ferrés-Amat, Elvira, et al. Standard basic life support training of the European Resuscitation Council versus blended training: a randomized trial of a new teaching method. Emergencias. 2020;32:45-8
Summary
Objective.
To evaluate the immediate and 9-month results of blended versus standard training in basic life support and the use of an automatic external defibrillator (BLS/AED).
Methods.
Randomized trial comparing the results of standard BLS/AED training to blended training. The control group received 4 hours of standard instruction from a trainer and the experimental blended-training group received 2 hours of virtual training and 2 hours of in-person instruction.
Results.
Eighty-nine students participated, 45 in the control group and 44 in the experimental group. The controls achieved better mean (SD) knowledge scores immediately after training (8.6 [0.9] vs 8.0 [1.14] in the experimental group, P=.013). The blended training group scored better on certain skill markers (hands-off time in seconds and compressions followed by complete chest recoil). Participant knowledge had decreased at 9 months without significant between-group differences. Overall, retention fell from a score of 8.31 (1.1) to 6.04 (1.6) (P=.001) in 9 months and the loss was similar in the 2 groups. No differences in practical skills between the groups were observed at the end of the course or 9 months later.
Conclusions.
The blended training method led to better results on some skill items.
