A randomized controlled trial comparing traditional training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to self-directed CPR learning in first year medical students: The two-person CPR study

Study AimThe primary purpose of this study was to compare two, shorter, self-directed methods of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education for healthcare professionals (HCP) to traditional training with a focus on the trainee's ability to perform two-person CPR.MethodsFirst-year medical students with either no prior CPR for HCP experience or prior training greater than 5 years were randomized to complete one of three courses: 1) HeartCode BLS System, 2) BLS Anytime, or 3) Traditional training. Only data from the adult CPR skills testing station was reviewed via video recording by certified CPR instructors and the Laerdal PC Skill Reporter software program (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway).ResultsThere were 180 first-year medical students who met inclusion criteria: 68 were HeartCode BLS System, 53 BLS Anytime group, and 59 traditional group Regarding two-person CPR, 57 (84%) of Heartcode BLS students and 43 (81%) of BLS Anytime students were able to initiate the switch compared to 39 (66%) of traditional course students (p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the quality of chest compressions or ventilations between the three groups. There was a trend for a much higher CPR skills testing pass rate for the traditional course students. However, failure to “clear to analyze or shock” while using the AED was the most common reason for failure in all groups.ConclusionThe self-directed learning groups not only had a high level of success in initiating the “switch” to two-person CPR, but were not significantly different from students who completed traditional training.