|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|2655688||1563967||2015||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود کنید|
PurposeTo assess the effectiveness of automated external defibrillator (AED) and manual external defibrillator (MED) training for third-year nurse students.MethodsWe conducted post-demonstration and post-practice evaluation for MED defibrillation, and pre-training, post-demonstration, and post-practice evaluation for AED defibrillation.ResultsFollowing MED training, time and confidence to defibrillate were improved significantly post-practice (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). In post-demonstration and post-practice evaluation, most students placed electrodes correctly (84.21% vs. 80.70%), cleared before defibrillation (75.44% vs. 89.47%), and performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation immediately after defibrillation (81.81% vs. 94.44%); the evaluations were not statistically different (p = 0.806, p = 0.094, p = 0.198, respectively). For AED training, time and confidence to defibrillate post-demonstration and post-practice were significantly improved (p < 0.001 vs. p < 0.001; p < 0.001 vs. p < 0.001, respectively) compared to that of pre-training; there was no obvious difference between the post-demonstration and post-practice evaluation (p = 0.235, p = 0.346, respectively). Post-AED demonstration, most students could place electrodes correctly (85.96%), clear (91.23%), and perform CPR immediately after defibrillation (85.96%), which remained at a high level post-practice (94.74%, 85.96%, 82.46%, respectively); there was no significant difference between the two evaluations (p = 0.203, p = 0.557, p = 0.776, respectively).ConclusionCombining MED and AED defibrillation training is effective and feasible for third-year nurse students. Minimal training is effective for AED, while MED requires additional practice.
Journal: International Journal of Nursing Sciences - Volume 2, Issue 1, March 2015, Pages 105–109