The effects of emergency video call system on remote guidance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation implemented by non-medical volunteers
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2021.10.020
- VernacularTitle:视频急救报警系统远程指导非医务人员单人心肺复苏的研究效果
- Author:
Wanshu QUE
1
;
Jinchuan ZHAO
;
Yiming SHEN
;
Mengqin CHENG
;
Jie LUO
;
Haojie WU
;
Yu MA
;
Jian HUANG
Author Information
1. 重庆市急救医疗中心急诊科，重庆 400014
- Keywords:
Emergency video call system;
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
Remote guidance
- From:
Chinese Journal of Emergency Medicine
2021;30(10):1264-1268
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the feasibility of emergency video call system in remote guidance of non-medical volunteers to implement single person cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).Methods:A scenario of sudden cardiac arrest with a bystander in a public place was created at Clinical Skill Training Center. 60 non-medical volunteers were randomly (ramdom number) divided into video group ( n = 40) and audio group ( n = 20). Volunteers in video group were remote instructed with the smart phone application software (APP) of Emergency Video Call System to implement CPR; the audio group receives remote voice guidance for CPR with a smart phone. The pressing depth, pressing frequency, volume of ventilation and the time of the first compression were compared between the two groups. The video group was divided into 5 subgroups to compare the cardiopulmonary resuscitation effect of 5 different models of smart phones. Ten CPR cycles were observed in each group. Results:the accuracy rate of pressing position in the video group was significantly higher than that in the audio group (91.5% vs 71.35%, P < 0.05); the proportion of pressing depth in the range of 5-6 cm was significantly higher than that in the audio group (62.79% vs. 44.73%, P < 0.05); the average pressing frequency was 100-120 times / min (70% vs. 52%, P < 0.05); the ventilation volume was 500-600 mL / time (18.25% vs. 10.75%, P < 0.05); The proportion of ventilation volume greater than 500ml / min was higher than that of audio group (64.88% vs. 43%, P < 0.05). The first pressing time was longer in the video group than in the audio group (131 s vs. 106 s, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the first ventilation time between the two groups (148 s vs. 144 s, P > 0.05). The total pressing pause time in video group was less than that in audio group (122.4 s vs. 164.2 s, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the above indicators among the five different models of smart phones in the video group ( P > 0.05). Conclusions:compared with audio remote guidance, video emergency system has obvious advantages in the accuracy of pressing position, pressing depth, pressing frequency, ventilation volume and pressing pause time, but the first pressing time is slightly longer than that of audio group. The popularization and application of the video system is supposed to improve the CPR quality and recovery success rate of non-medical personnel, and facilitated to encourage the first witness to implement CPR.
