Basic life support and external defibrillation competences after instruction and at 6 months comparing face-to-face and blended training. Randomised trial

Abstract

Aim of the Study: The objective of this study was to compare the immediate and 6-month efficacy of basic life support (BLS) and automatic external defibrillation (AED) training using standard or blended methods. Methods: First-year students of medicine and nursing (n = 129) were randomly assigned to a control group (face-to-face training based on the European Resuscitation Council [ERC] Guidelines) or to an experimental group that trained with a self-training video, a new website, a Moodle platform, an intelligent manikin, and 45 min of instructor presence. Both groups were homogeneous and were evaluated identically. Theoretical knowledge was evaluated using a multi-choice questionnaire (MCQ). Skill performance was evaluated by the instructor's rubric and on a high-fidelity Resusci Anne QCPR manikin. Results: Immediately after the course, there were no statistically significant differences in knowledge between the two groups. The median score of practical evaluation assessed by the instructor was significantly better in the experimental group (8.15, SD 0.93 vs 7.7, SD 1.18; P = 0.02). No differences between groups were found when using a high-fidelity manikin to evaluate chest compressions and lung inflations. At six months, the scores in knowledge and skill performance were significantly lower compared to the evaluations at the end of the instruction, but they remained still higher compared to baseline. The experimental group had higher scores in practical skills evaluated by the instructor than the control group (7.44, SD 1.85 vs 6.10, SD 2.6; P = 0.01). Conclusions: The blended method provides the same or even higher levels of knowledge and skills than standard instruction both immediately after the course and six months later.