Back Plate Marking of a Mechanical Chest Compression Device to Reduce the Duration of Chest Compression Interruptions.

IF 1.5 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Open Access Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2022-08-02 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAEM.S368510
Sireethorn Khunpanich, Wasuntaraporn Pethyabarn
{"title":"Back Plate Marking of a Mechanical Chest Compression Device to Reduce the Duration of Chest Compression Interruptions.","authors":"Sireethorn Khunpanich,&nbsp;Wasuntaraporn Pethyabarn","doi":"10.2147/OAEM.S368510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of applying the back plate marking method vs the standard method, to a mechanical chest compression device, in regards to reducing the duration of chest compression interruptions during a simulated cardiac arrest.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An experimental study, one group pretest posttest design, conducted in a university-based hospital from November 2020 to October 2021. The study recruited 20 participants including emergency medical residents and paramedics. The participants were randomized into three-person teams and applied the device in both standard and back plate marking methods in sequential order. Teams were required to use a mechanical chest compression device in a manikin-based OHCA simulation to assess performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median time pause for the deployment of the upper part of the device was significantly reduced (16 vs 21s, P < 0.01) in the back plate marking method, as was the total pause for device deployment (31.5 vs 38.75s, P = 0.03) and the proportion of total hands-off time attributable to device application interruption (43.08% vs 49.18%, P = 0.02). There was no difference between groups in the duration of all compression interruptions (70.5 vs 82.75s, P = 0.20) and compression fractions (77.85 vs 76.91%, P = 0.19).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The back plate marking method was a significantly reduced time of the deployment of the upper part of the device and in regards to the overall pause for device deployment, but there was no difference in CPR quality between the two methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":45096,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/40/bc/oaem-14-405.PMC9356708.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S368510","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of applying the back plate marking method vs the standard method, to a mechanical chest compression device, in regards to reducing the duration of chest compression interruptions during a simulated cardiac arrest.

Methods: An experimental study, one group pretest posttest design, conducted in a university-based hospital from November 2020 to October 2021. The study recruited 20 participants including emergency medical residents and paramedics. The participants were randomized into three-person teams and applied the device in both standard and back plate marking methods in sequential order. Teams were required to use a mechanical chest compression device in a manikin-based OHCA simulation to assess performance.

Results: The median time pause for the deployment of the upper part of the device was significantly reduced (16 vs 21s, P < 0.01) in the back plate marking method, as was the total pause for device deployment (31.5 vs 38.75s, P = 0.03) and the proportion of total hands-off time attributable to device application interruption (43.08% vs 49.18%, P = 0.02). There was no difference between groups in the duration of all compression interruptions (70.5 vs 82.75s, P = 0.20) and compression fractions (77.85 vs 76.91%, P = 0.19).

Conclusion: The back plate marking method was a significantly reduced time of the deployment of the upper part of the device and in regards to the overall pause for device deployment, but there was no difference in CPR quality between the two methods.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机械胸压装置的背板标记以减少胸压中断的持续时间。
目的:比较应用后板标记法与标准方法在机械胸按压装置中减少模拟心脏骤停期间胸按压中断时间的有效性。方法:于2020年11月至2021年10月在某大学附属医院进行一组前测后测设计的实验研究。这项研究招募了20名参与者,包括急诊住院医生和护理人员。参与者被随机分为三人小组,并按顺序使用该设备进行标准和后板标记方法。团队被要求在基于人体模型的OHCA模拟中使用机械胸压装置来评估性能。结果:在后板标记方法中,器械上半部分部署的中位暂停时间显著减少(16 vs 21s, P < 0.01),器械部署的总暂停时间(31.5 vs 38.75s, P = 0.03)和由于器械应用中断而导致的总放手时间比例(43.08% vs 49.18%, P = 0.02)。两组间所有压缩中断时间(70.5 vs 82.75s, P = 0.20)和压缩分数(77.85 vs 76.91%, P = 0.19)均无差异。结论:后板标记法在器械上半部分展开的时间和器械展开的整体暂停时间上均显著减少,但两种方法在心肺复苏质量上无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Access Emergency Medicine
Open Access Emergency Medicine EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
An Observational Study of Sexual Assaults in French Guiana During 2019-2020 [Letter]. Association of Emergency Department Length of Stay and Hospital Mortality in Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19. Utility of Common Bile Duct Identification on Biliary Ultrasound in Emergency Department Patients. Effect of a Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Driven vs Standard Diagnostic Pathway on 24-Hour Hospital Stay in Emergency Department Patients with Dyspnea-Protocol for A Randomized Controlled Trial. Accuracy of FAST-ED for Assessment Large Vessel Occlusion of Acute Ischemic Stroke in Emergency Department.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1