The Effects of 'Hands Only(TM)' Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) in CPR Education in Elementary School.
- Author:
Myoung Cheol SHIN
1
;
Jun Hwi CHO
;
Hyun Young CHOI
;
Chan Woo PARK
;
Joong Bum MOON
;
Seong Bin CHON
;
Hui Young LEE
;
Tae Hun LEE
;
Jeong Yeul SEO
;
Hee Chul AHN
;
Dong Jin OH
Author Information
1. Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Kangwon National University Hospital, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Korea. cjhemd@kangwon.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
School health services;
Schools;
Ventilation;
Education
- MeSH:
American Heart Association;
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation;
Child;
Hand;
Heart;
Humans;
Korea;
Learning;
Retention (Psychology);
School Health Services;
Thorax;
Ventilation
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
2010;21(5):665-669
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The success of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) depends on how soon after a heart attack the intervention is done and on how the quality of the CPR is. Although in Korea there are several CPR education courses, CPR done by bystanders to an attack remains very low. This might be related to different causes such as the complexity of the CPR sequence and the difficulty of learning CPR, specifically ventilation maneuvers. The American Heart Association (AHA) has recently recommended 'Hands Only(TM) CPR', without ventilation, for bystander rescuers. In the present study, we investigated the educational effects of 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' in elementary school students. We further analyzed the effects of this variable on CPR skill learning and retention for a 3 months period. METHODS: We selected two groups of 5th grade elementary school students to perform this study. One group received CPR education with ventilation (CPR with ventilation group); the other received 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' education ('Hands Only(TM) CPR' group). The Laerdal PC Skill Reporting system was used for both education sessions and for evaluation immediately after the sessions. Skill performance data, together with ventilation data and compression data were recorded for further comparisons. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups regarding chest compression (average rate, average duty cycle, registered with no error, average depth, etc.). The average chest compression count per minute was 118+/-12/min in the 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' group and 85+/-13/min in the CPR with ventilation group (p=0.001). Registered adequate compression depth was 23+/-29% in the 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' group and 23+/-31% in the CPR with ventilation group (p=0.962). The total hands off time was 18+/-7 seconds in the 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' group and 40+/-11 seconds in the CPR with ventilation group. After 3 months there were still no differences in chest compression between the two groups. The average count per minute at 3 months was 109+/-15/min in the 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' group and 83+/-17/min in the CPR with ventilation group (p=0.001). Registered adequate compression depth was 26+/-31% in the 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' group and 31+/-35% in the CPR with ventilation group (p=0.334). The total hands off time was 12+/-5 seconds in the 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' group and 31+/-12 seconds in the CPR with ventilation group (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' program in elementary school children increased the chest compression rate. However, there was no between groups difference in adequate compression depth. We were unable to demonstrate that the 'Hands Only(TM) CPR' education program in elementary school children led to a better effect.
