Barney Stephenson | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Effects of a backboard, bed height, and operator position on compression depth during simulated resuscitation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a backboard, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provider body position and bed height on the quality of chest compression during simulated in-hospital resuscitation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled cross-over trial in a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Second-year medical student basic life support instructors. INTERVENTIONS: Chest compressions performed on a resuscitation manikin placed on a hospital bed with/without a CPR backboard, kneeling on the bed adjacent to the manikin and lowering the height of the bed. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Sub-optimal chest compressions were performed on all surfaces. There were no differences in compression depth: standard CPR, 29+/-7 mm; backboard CPR, 31+/-10 mm; kneeling on the bed, 30+/-7 mm; lowering bed height, 32+/-10 mm. Compression rate and duty cycle were similar on each surface. Participants failed to recognise their poor quality CPR, and there was no difference in assessment of fatigue or efficacy of CPR between surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to current guidelines, the use of a CPR backboard did not improve chest compressions. Furthermore, kneeling on the bed adjacent to the victim or lowering bed height did not impact materially on the quality of chest compression. These findings should be validated in clinical studies.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2005

Birmingham assessment of breathing study (BABS).

BACKGROUND: Current international resuscitation guidelines for lay people rely on the assessment of "normal breathing" as a key sign of breathing and circulation. However, it is not known how accurately laypersons can discriminate between "normal" and "abnormal" breathing. The aim of this study was to test the ability of medical students to discriminate between simulated normal and abnormal breathing patterns and select the correct treatment. METHODS: Six video clips of simulated breathing were recorded showing: normal; abnormal -shallow, rapid, agonal (obstructed and unobstructed airways); or absent breathing. The clips were validated by three experienced emergency practitioners and then shown in a random order to 48 second-year medical students. For each clip observers were asked to indicate: "Is this patient breathing?" (yes-normal, yes-abnormal, no) and "What action would you take?" (rescue breathing or recovery position). RESULTS: All experts correctly identified the breathing type and agreed on an appropriate emergency action. Students identified normal breathing as: normal 61%, abnormal 33% and absent 6%; abnormal breathing as: normal 29%, abnormal 61%, absent 10%; and absent breathing as: normal 8%, abnormal 6%, absent 85%. Correct actions were selected in 86% during normal breathing, 51% during abnormal breathing and 86% during absent breathing. The sensitivity for observers correctly identifying normal from abnormal breathing was 60% and specificity 75% and for selecting the correct action was 42% and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students were unable to identify normal breathing from abnormal breathing reliably resulting in a high number of inappropriate, potentially harmful actions. Further evaluation of the optimal method for assessing for signs of breathing and circulation is required.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed2004

Over-the-head CPR.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗