Voice advisory manikin versus instructor facilitated training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation

SummaryBackgroundTraining of healthcare staff in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is time-consuming and costly. It has been suggested to replace instructor facilitated (IF) training with an automated voice advisory manikin (VAM), which increases skill level by continuous verbal feedback during individual training.AimsTo compare a VAM (ResusciAnne CPR skills station, Laerdal Medical A/S, Norway) with IF training in CPR using a bag-valve-mask (BVM) in terms of skills retention after 3 months.MethodsForty-three second year medical students were included and CPR performance (ERC Guidelines for Resuscitation 2005) was assessed in a 2 min test before randomisation to either IF training in groups of 8 or individual VAM training. Immediately after training and after 3 months, CPR performance was assessed in identical 2 min tests. Laerdal PC Skill Reporting System 2.0 was used to collect data. To quantify CPR performance a scoring system based on the Cardiff test was used. Groups were compared with a Mann Whitney rank sum test.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when considering change in overall CPR performance score from before training to 3 months after training (P = 0.12). However, the IF group performed significantly better than the VAM group in the total score, both immediately after (P = 0.0008) and 3 months after training (P = 0.02). This difference was primarily related to the BVM skills.ConclusionSkill retention in CPR using a bag-valve-mask was better after 3 months when training with an instructor than with an automated voice advisory manikin.