Dispatcher assisted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR): Is it still important to continue teaching lay bystander CPR?

• Published in: The American journal of emergency medicine 2016
• Main Authors: Navarro-Patón, Rubén, Freire-Tellado, Miguel, del Pilar Pavón-Prieto, Mª, Vázquez-López, Daniel, Neira-Pájaro, Miguel, Lorenzana-Bargueiras, Sergio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Emergency
• ISSN: 0735-6757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.014

ABSTRACT Purpose The aim of this study was to compare on manikin chest compressions only CPR performance carried out by untrained volunteers following Dispatcher assisted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DACPR), and then by the same trained volunteers immediately after chest compressions only CPR course and 4 months after the CPR course. Method 38 university student volunteers with no previous experience in CPR took part in three on manikin chest compressions only CPR skill evaluations: first in a DACPR, then after chest compressions only CPR course (ACPRC) and lastly, four months after a CPR course (4MACPRC). Only 22 completed the whole process. Results In DACPR 7.89% of participants carried out cardiac compressions outside the thorax. The mean average time from collapse to first compression was reduced in 4MACPRC (40.77 seconds), as compared to DACPR (144.54 seconds ); P < 0.001) The following parameters were significantly better in 4MACPRC than in DACPR: Average compression depth (44.72 vs 25.22; p < 0.001), average compression rate (106.1 vs 87.90; p < 0.001), total number of compressions in 3 minutes (317 vs 245; p < 0.001), percentage of correct compressions (53.00% vs 4.72 %; p < 0,001) and percentage of correct hand positioning (95.40 vs 91.09; p < 0.001) Conclusions Even though chest compressions only DACPR allows lay bystanders to be able to carry out cardiac compressions in 92.1% of cases, these were delivered later and were less efficient than chest compressions only CPR given by trained bystanders after a CPR course and four months after the course.