Effect of real-time visual feedback device 'Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (QCPR) Classroom' with a metronome sound on layperson CPR training in Japan: a cluster randomized control trial.

OBJECTIVES

'Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (QCPR) Classroom' was recently introduced to provide higher-quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) training. This study aimed to examine whether novel QCPR Classroom training can lead to higher chest-compression quality than standard CPR training.

DESIGN

A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare standard CPR training (control) and QCPR Classroom (intervention).

SETTING

Layperson CPR training in Japan.

PARTICIPANTS

Six hundred forty-two people aged over 15 years were recruited from among CPR trainees.

INTERVENTIONS: CPR performance data were registered without feedback on instrumented Little Anne prototypes for 1 min pretraining and post-training. A large classroom was used in which QCPR Classroom participants could see their CPR performance on a big screen at the front; the control group only received instructor's subjective feedback.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were compression depth (mm), rate (compressions per minute (cpm)), percentage of adequate depth (%) and recoil (%). Survey scores were a secondary outcome. The survey included participants' confidence regarding CPR parameters and ease of understanding instructor feedback.

RESULTS

In total, 259 and 238 people in the control and QCPR Classroom groups, respectively, were eligible for analysis. After training, the mean compression depth and rate were 56.1±9.8 mm and 119.2±7.3 cpm in the control group and 59.5±7.9 mm and 116.8±5.5 cpm in the QCPR Classroom group. The QCPR Classroom group showed significantly more adequate depth than the control group (p=0.001). There were 39.0% (95% CI 33.8 to 44.2; p<0.0001) and 20.0% improvements (95% CI 15.4 to 24.7; P<0.0001) in the QCPR Classroom and control groups, respectively. The difference in adequate recoil between pretraining and post-training was 2.7% (95% CI -1.7 to 7.1; pre 64.2±36.5% vs post 66.9%±34.6%; p=0.23) and 22.6% in the control and QCPR Classroom groups (95% CI 17.8 to 27.3; pre 64.8±37.5% vs post 87.4%±22.9%; p<0.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

QCPR Classroom helped students achieve high-quality CPR training, especially for proper compression depth and full recoil. For good educational achievement, a novel QCPR Classroom with a metronome sound is recommended.