{"title":"Back Plate Marking of a Mechanical Chest Compression Device to Reduce the Duration of Chest Compression Interruptions.","authors":"Sireethorn Khunpanich, 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.
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。