452
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 85 August 1992
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation training revisited
A P L Goodwin MB BS FCAnaes
Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ
Keywords: cardiopulmonary resuscitation; training; junior hospital doctor
Summary The cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills of 50 junior hospital doctors (22 house officers and 28 senior house officers) were assessed. Theoretical knowledge was measured by a multiple choice questionnaire and practical ability with the Laerdal Skillmeter Resusci Anne. Only 40% of the study group passed both tests. Those doctors who had previously received regular CPR training performed better in the practical test (P< 0.05) than those who had not. Theoretical knowledge was unrelated to previous CPR training. It is recommended that junior hospital doctors should undergo regular CPR training every 6 months, in order to maintain their practical CPR skills.
Introduction Junior hospital doctors have poor cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills'-5. This may be because retention of skills declines 5 months after CPR training6. Since Casey's study', it is the practice at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge to provide 6 monthly updates in cardiopulmonary resuscitation to maintain knowledge and skill in house offlcers (HO) and senior house officers (SHO). Attendance at these workshops is voluntary but consultants are urged to encourage their trainees to attend. The aim of the present study was to assess the value of this training programme by seeing if standards of resuscitation were maintained. Methods Fifty doctors, 22 house officers in their second preregistration post and 28 senior house officers, were assessed during this study. Each attended a training session on separate days where they completed a multiple choice questionnaire, 25 questions testing knowledge of both basic and advanced life support7. A questionnaire on training and previous experience was completed after this. Practical skills were tested with the Laerdal Skillmeter Resusci Anne. The candidate was told, 'one of your ward patients has collapsed on the floor'. They received no help and no additional equipment. Scoring was based on Safar's guidelines8. The pass mark for the multiple choice questionnaire was 60% which must include the correct answer to five key questions. In the practical assessment, failure to call for help was overlooked, but candidates were required to perform other steps in the correct manner in order to gain a pass. Data were analysed using chi-squared tests with Yates' correction. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Iconrect Compression Rate Inadequate venhiation hadeoquate ECM_ Incorect ECM V:C Inconet eato Central pulse_ Call for hp Inidal Vendbaton_ M*ainn Airway
Unrespornaiveness 20
30
40
60
50
Petage of 50 juni docofr falki each aep
Figure 1. Candidate's failure rate at each step of the basic life support assessment V:.C= ventilation compression ratio, ECM= external cardiac massage
Results The study lasted 10 days. The scores for house officer and senior house officer groups were combined. Thirty-five (70%) passed the multiple choice examination. In addition, 35 (70%) corretly answered 80% of the questions related to the changes in practice introduced in the 1989 Resuscitation Council guidelines. Twenty-three (46%) passed the practical assessment. Reasons for failing the practical assessment are shown in Figure 1. When the practical and theoretical assessments were combined 20 (40%) passed. These results are shown in Table 1. Comparing groups, house officers performed significantly better (P< 0.02) than senior house officers in the practical assessment. Table 2 relates pass and fail groups to the number of CPR updates attended. Training in CPR as medical students, house officers and in the preceding 6 months promotes competence in the practical assessment (P
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 85 August 1992
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation training revisited
A P L Goodwin MB BS FCAnaes
Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ
Keywords: cardiopulmonary resuscitation; training; junior hospital doctor
Summary The cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills of 50 junior hospital doctors (22 house officers and 28 senior house officers) were assessed. Theoretical knowledge was measured by a multiple choice questionnaire and practical ability with the Laerdal Skillmeter Resusci Anne. Only 40% of the study group passed both tests. Those doctors who had previously received regular CPR training performed better in the practical test (P< 0.05) than those who had not. Theoretical knowledge was unrelated to previous CPR training. It is recommended that junior hospital doctors should undergo regular CPR training every 6 months, in order to maintain their practical CPR skills.
Introduction Junior hospital doctors have poor cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills'-5. This may be because retention of skills declines 5 months after CPR training6. Since Casey's study', it is the practice at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge to provide 6 monthly updates in cardiopulmonary resuscitation to maintain knowledge and skill in house offlcers (HO) and senior house officers (SHO). Attendance at these workshops is voluntary but consultants are urged to encourage their trainees to attend. The aim of the present study was to assess the value of this training programme by seeing if standards of resuscitation were maintained. Methods Fifty doctors, 22 house officers in their second preregistration post and 28 senior house officers, were assessed during this study. Each attended a training session on separate days where they completed a multiple choice questionnaire, 25 questions testing knowledge of both basic and advanced life support7. A questionnaire on training and previous experience was completed after this. Practical skills were tested with the Laerdal Skillmeter Resusci Anne. The candidate was told, 'one of your ward patients has collapsed on the floor'. They received no help and no additional equipment. Scoring was based on Safar's guidelines8. The pass mark for the multiple choice questionnaire was 60% which must include the correct answer to five key questions. In the practical assessment, failure to call for help was overlooked, but candidates were required to perform other steps in the correct manner in order to gain a pass. Data were analysed using chi-squared tests with Yates' correction. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Iconrect Compression Rate Inadequate venhiation hadeoquate ECM_ Incorect ECM V:C Inconet eato Central pulse_ Call for hp Inidal Vendbaton_ M*ainn Airway
Unrespornaiveness 20
30
40
60
50
Petage of 50 juni docofr falki each aep
Figure 1. Candidate's failure rate at each step of the basic life support assessment V:.C= ventilation compression ratio, ECM= external cardiac massage
Results The study lasted 10 days. The scores for house officer and senior house officer groups were combined. Thirty-five (70%) passed the multiple choice examination. In addition, 35 (70%) corretly answered 80% of the questions related to the changes in practice introduced in the 1989 Resuscitation Council guidelines. Twenty-three (46%) passed the practical assessment. Reasons for failing the practical assessment are shown in Figure 1. When the practical and theoretical assessments were combined 20 (40%) passed. These results are shown in Table 1. Comparing groups, house officers performed significantly better (P< 0.02) than senior house officers in the practical assessment. Table 2 relates pass and fail groups to the number of CPR updates attended. Training in CPR as medical students, house officers and in the preceding 6 months promotes competence in the practical assessment (P
