• Daniyal Mansoor Ali, Butool Hisam, Natasha Shaukat, Noor Baig, Ong Marcus Eng Hock MEH Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. , Jonathan L Epstein, Eric Goralnick, Paul D Kivela, Bryan McNally, and Junaid Razzak.
• Centre of Excellence Trauma and Emergencies, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. daniyal.mansoor@aku.edu.
• Scand J Trauma Resus. 2021 Mar 29; 29 (1): 53.

BackgroundTraditional, instructor led, in-person training of CPR skills has become more challenging due to COVID-19 pandemic. We compared the learning outcomes of standard in-person CPR training (ST) with alternative methods of training such as hybrid or online-only training (AT) on CPR performance, quality, and knowledge among laypersons with no previous CPR training.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Google Scholar for relevant articles from January 1995 to May 2020. Covidence was used to review articles by two independent researchers. Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool was used to assess quality of the manuscripts.ResultsOf the 978 articles screened, twenty met the final inclusion criteria. All included studies had an experimental design and moderate to strong global quality rating. The trainees in ST group performed better on calling 911, time to initiate chest compressions, hand placement and chest compression depth. Trainees in AT group performed better in assessing scene safety, calling for help, response time including initiating first rescue breathing, adequate ventilation volume, compression rates, shorter hands-off time, confidence, willingness to perform CPR, ability to follow CPR algorithm, and equivalent or better knowledge retention than standard teaching methodology.ConclusionAT methods of CPR training provide an effective alternative to the standard in-person CPR for large scale public training.

15 keywords...

hide…