• Tae Han Kim, Yu Jin Lee, Eui Jung Lee, Young Sun Ro, KyungWon Lee, Hyeona Lee, Dayea Beatrice Jang, Kyoung Jun Song, Sang Do Shin, Helge Myklebust, and Tonje Søraas Birkenes.
• From the Department of Emergency Medicine (T.H.K.), Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul; Department of Emergency Medicine (Y.J.L.), Inha University Hospital, Incheon; Department of Emergency Medicine (E.J.L.), Korea University Anam Hospital; Laboratory of Emergency Medical Services (Y.S.R., H.L., D.B.J.), Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute; Department of Emergency Medicine (K.W.L.), Inje University College of Medicine and Seoul Paik Hospital; Department of Emergency Medicine (K.J.S., S.D.S.), Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; and Laerdal Medical (H.M., T.S.B.), Stavanger, Norway.
• Simul Healthc. 2018 Feb 1; 13 (1): 27-32.

IntroductionFor cardiac arrests witnessed at home, the witness is usually a middle-aged or older housewife. We compared the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance of bystanders trained with the newly developed telephone-basic life support (T-BLS) program and those trained with standard BLS (S-BLS) training programs.MethodsTwenty-four middle-aged and older housewives without previous CPR education were enrolled and randomized into two groups of BLS training programs. The T-BLS training program included concepts and current instruction protocols for telephone-assisted CPR, whereas the S-BLS training program provided training for BLS. After each training course, the participants simulated CPR and were assisted by a dispatcher via telephone. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality was measured and recorded using a mannequin simulator. The primary outcome was total no-flow time (>1.5 seconds without chest compression) during simulation.ResultsAmong 24 participants, two (8.3%) who experienced mechanical failure of simulation mannequin and one (4.2%) who violated simulation protocols were excluded at initial simulation, and two (8.3%) refused follow-up after 6 months. The median (interquartile range) total no-flow time during initial simulation was 79.6 (66.4-96.9) seconds for the T-BLS training group and 147.6 (122.5-184.0) seconds for the S-BLS training group (P < 0.01). Median cumulative interruption time and median number of interruption events during BLS at initial simulation and 6-month follow-up simulation were significantly shorter in the T-BLS than in the S-BLS group (1.0 vs. 9.5, P < 0.01, and 1.0 vs. 10.5, P = 0.02, respectively).ConclusionsParticipants trained with the T-BLS training program showed shorter no-flow time and fewer interruptions during bystander CPR simulation assisted by a dispatcher.

13 keywords...

hide…