Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

Background: While just-in-time (JIT) training is associated with time and cost savings, limited evidence directly compares layperson CPR performance using JIT videos to in-person CPR courses. We measured layperson CPR performance using a JIT video compared to an in-person course or no training.

Methods: Adult employees at a professional sports stadium were randomized to perform CPR in a simulated scenario a) after completing an AHA HeartSaver® course, b) using a JIT training video, or c) neither (control). CPR performance was assessed by trained evaluators and QCPR-enabled simulators. The primary outcome was the performance of pre-defined critical actions. Participants were blinded to study objectives and trained evaluators used standardized checklists.

Results: Of 230 eligible subjects, 221 were included in analysis, without significant differences in group characteristics. Correct CPR performance was low, though significantly higher in the AHA group (AHA: 40%, 95%CI 28-51; JIT: 15%, 95%CI 8-26; control 10%, 95%CI 4-19). Compression fraction was significantly greater in the AHA group (90%, IQR 69-98) compared to JIT (61%, IQR 29-89) or control (65%, IQR 33-93). An AED was requested more frequently in the AHA group (47%) than in the JIT (15%) or control (10%) groups.

Conclusions: While overall performance of correct CPR skills was best following a traditional CPR course, laypersons using real-time video training performed as well as those taking an AHA HeartSaver® course on several key measures including time to chest compressions and compression rate.Trial Registration.NCT05983640.