A counterbalanced cross-over study of the effects of visual, auditory and no feedback on performance measures in a simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation
2011

Effects of Feedback on CPR Performance

Sample size: 15 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Cason Carolyn L, Trowbridge Cynthia, Baxley Susan M, Ricard Mark D

Primary Institution: University of Texas at Arlington

Hypothesis

Feedback will improve the quality of CPR; however, the quality of CPR will decline when the feedback is too complex or distracting.

Conclusion

Feedback mitigated the negative effects of fatigue on CPR performance, with visual feedback yielding better performance than no feedback or auditory feedback.

Supporting Evidence

  • Visual feedback yielded a greater percentage of correct compressions (78.1%) than auditory (65.4%) or no feedback (44.5%).
  • Compression rate with auditory feedback was less than with both visual and no feedback (p < 0.05).
  • CPR performed with no feedback yielded a shallower average depth of compression than did auditory or visual feedback (p < 0.05).
  • Auditory feedback produced lower lactate concentrations than did visual feedback (p < 0.05).

Takeaway

When people do CPR, getting feedback helps them do it better, especially if the feedback is visual.

Methodology

Fifteen female volunteers performed 10 minutes of CPR under three feedback conditions: none, auditory only, and visual only, with performance data collected using SkillReporter software.

Potential Biases

The study did not evaluate the most common feedback type used in clinical settings, which is a combination of auditory and visual feedback.

Limitations

The study was conducted in a laboratory setting on a training manikin, which does not simulate the dynamics of human chests during resuscitation.

Participant Demographics

Participants were 15 female volunteers aged 23 to 60, with a body mass index between 20 and 31 kg/m².

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.05

Confidence Interval

(27.1-61.8)

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1472-6955-10-15

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication