Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2019
Basic Life Support: an accessible tool in layperson training.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bonizzio Carolina Reis, Nagao Christopher K, Polho Gabriel B, Paes Vitor R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the efficiency of a new method of training laypeople on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). 2) To assess previous knowledge of the participants.
METHODS: Instructors were trained according to the 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines, with emphasis on CPR. Dummies made with PET bottles were used, and a questionnaire was applied to the participants before and after training. Statistical analysis was performed in the R commander program. Participants with incomplete documents were excluded from the study.
RESULTS: Out of 101 participants, 96 were included: 69 lay people, 17 health professionals, and ten health students. There was an improvement in the overall performance after training (mean pre: 62.7%, mean post: 75.8%, p <0.01), also present in the following main concepts: "mouth-to-mouth breathing is not necessary" (p <0.01), "risk of contamination" (p <0.01), "compression technique" (p <0.01). The concepts "recognition of severity" and "what is chest compression" did not improve, but had good pre-test means, 96.8% and 81.2%. There was no statistical difference in the knowledge between the groups (laypeople vs. health professionals and students, pre=0,06 e post=0,33).
CONCLUSION: The tools used in training were efficient. However, further studies are necessary to assess the long-term impact of this intervention.
METHODS: Instructors were trained according to the 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines, with emphasis on CPR. Dummies made with PET bottles were used, and a questionnaire was applied to the participants before and after training. Statistical analysis was performed in the R commander program. Participants with incomplete documents were excluded from the study.
RESULTS: Out of 101 participants, 96 were included: 69 lay people, 17 health professionals, and ten health students. There was an improvement in the overall performance after training (mean pre: 62.7%, mean post: 75.8%, p <0.01), also present in the following main concepts: "mouth-to-mouth breathing is not necessary" (p <0.01), "risk of contamination" (p <0.01), "compression technique" (p <0.01). The concepts "recognition of severity" and "what is chest compression" did not improve, but had good pre-test means, 96.8% and 81.2%. There was no statistical difference in the knowledge between the groups (laypeople vs. health professionals and students, pre=0,06 e post=0,33).
CONCLUSION: The tools used in training were efficient. However, further studies are necessary to assess the long-term impact of this intervention.