Comparison of manual and mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the move using a manikin: a service evaluation

Blair, Laura, Kendal, Simon Peter, Shaw, Gary Richard, Byers, Sonia, Dew, Rosie, Norton, Michael, Wilkes, Scott and Wright, John (2017) Comparison of manual and mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the move using a manikin: a service evaluation. Comparison of manual and mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the move using a manikin: a service evaluation, 2 (3). pp. 6-15. ISSN 1478-4726

[img] PDF
Blair et al 2017.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to Repository staff only

Download (542kB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the effect that transporting a patient has on the quality
of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provided during pre-hospital resuscitation. Utilising the
2010 European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines as a framework, one- and two-person
manual CPR (SCPR) and mechanical CPR (MCPR) were directly compared in a simulated prehospital
transport setting.
Methods: Ten practising paramedics each volunteered to participate in four pre-hospital CPR
scenarios. The MCPR device used for this study was the LUCASTM2. Data were captured electronically
using QCPRTM wireless technology (Resusci Anne® Wireless SkillReporterTM manikin and software
by Laerdal Medical©).
Results: A reduction in the rate, depth and percentage of correct compressions was noted when
the paramedics were moving the patient. In relation to the 2010 ERC guidelines, the SCPR did not
meet current guidelines and was of more variable quality than MCPR. MCPR was consistent and
conformed to the guidelines. However, the application of the LUCASTM2 when only one paramedic
was present resulted in a significant delay in commencing chest compressions.
Conclusion: In the pre-hospital setting, transporting a patient during a cardiac arrest can have
a deleterious effect on the quality of chest compressions being provided. When provided by a
mechanical device rather than manually, the quality of chest compressions produced is closer to
that currently recommended, but two persons would be required for timely deployment of the
device and to maximise the chest compression fraction. This could suggest a potential use for
pre-hospital MCPR even in the absence of recommendation for routine use.
Keywords
CPR; mechanical CPR; transport

Item Type: Article
Subjects: Sciences > Health Sciences
Divisions: Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing
Depositing User: Rosie Dew
Date Deposited: 09 May 2018 10:17
Last Modified: 09 May 2018 10:17
URI: http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/id/eprint/9290

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year