Rose’s Article Discussion number 1

http://www.ems1.com/cpr/articles/1936794-Does-simulated-CPR-training-improve-field-CPR-quality/

In my field, as in most fields, research is ongoing. With EMS and medicine, it seems to be cyclical. Things fall into favour then out of favour and then, low and behold, it’s once again, the latest and greatest.  EMS historically did not get much credit in the research world. We typically adopted what the hospitals were doing and that was that. Well, maybe some modifications to make it work well for us. We are just now beginning to jump start our own research projects that specifically relate to our field.  Often times, these research ideas start in our academic centers. Even here at Holland College.

One thing that comes up over and over again is CPR. How should be done? How fast? How slow? Should we use automated compression devices?  Compressions only or compressions and breaths? Who should do what? What happens when we stop CPR? When should we stop CPR? It seems there are new guidelines every year! And for today’s article topic, what is the best way to train people?

“Performance of CPR in the clinical setting is believed to be frequently inconsistent with the AHA guidelines and of low quality. Pre-hospital professionals often report that initial CPR and resuscitation training is void of effective instruction and application.”

I am curious what the reasoning is behind these statements. Couple things. The article mentions several times the lack of proper research so where is all this “low quality CPR” information coming from?  Also, why is the training deemed inadequate for pre-hospital professionals? Is it the practice tools? The method of instruction? Or, perhaps is it that standard training is often modelled after in hospital situations or lay person interaction. The prehospital setting of paramedics is a vastly different world then the environment controlled, resource ready hospital, and the foreign environments that medics find themselves in. How do you simulate that? Sure we have the high fidelity manikins and computer programed simulations but at the end of the day, real tissue and real situations are the best practice. Unfortunately, there is an ethical issue there. So, I think it is our job as instructors to use the best tools we have available to ensure that medics are ready with the skills and techniques to provide the best care possible.

Continuing education also plays a huge role is effective patient care. If we encourage an provide opportunity to practice then we will go a long way to ensuring high quality CPR.  If we didn’t have continued education then where would medics go to learn about and practice the most current recommended guidelines?   What suggestions do you have to improve our simulated teaching environment?

I love that they included student debriefings in this article. Whats the point of all the gadgets and rigamaroll if we don’t provide an opportunity to review and reflect.

One thought on “Rose’s Article Discussion number 1”

  1. Hey Rose,

    I found this to be a really interesting read. I’d been procrastinating on the article assignments because reading and analyzing text rich documents really doesn’t excite me. Instead a get a little sense of dread. So I’m glad you found an article that made sense for you in your daily work life. (I branched out and found a couple I was more interested in too.)

    I hear what you said about something being “in” then “out” then all of a sudden back in again. That happens a lot in education too, usually a new name gets slapped on an existing idea.

    I expect it would be frustrating to have continual changes in what you have to teach? Is it still ABC’s? once upon a time didn’t switch to CAB’s?

    I hope they are getting data directly from the hands on first responders, who are working in the field to get the most accurate picture of best practice.

Leave a Reply