PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Helen Rogers

Publications and source records attributed to Helen Rogers.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
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

CPREzy: an evaluation during simulated cardiac arrest on a hospital bed.

CPREzy is a new adjunct designed to improve the application of manual external chest compressions (ECC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this study was to determine the effect of using the CPREzy device compared to standard CPR during the simulated resuscitation of a patient on a hospital bed. Twenty medical student volunteers were randomised using a cross over trial design to perform 3 min of continuous ECC using CPREzy and standard CPR. There was a significant improvement in ECC depth with CPREzy compared to standard CPR 42.9 (4.4) mm versus 34.2 (7.6): mm, P = 0.001; 95% CI d.f. 4.4-12.9 mm. This translated to a reduction in the percentage of shallow compressions (<38 mm) with CPREzy 16 (23)% compared to standard CPR 59 (44)%, P = 0.003. There was a small increase in the percentage of compression regarded excessive (>51 mm): CPREzy 6.5 (19)% versus standard CPR 0 (0.1)%. P = 0.012). There was no difference in compression rate or duty cycle between techniques. Equal numbers of participants (40% in each group) performed one of more incorrectly placed chest compression. However the total number of incorrect compressions was higher for the CPREzy group (26% versus 3.9% standard CPR, P < 0.001). This was due to a higher number of low compressions (26% of total compressions for CPREzy versus 1% for standard CPR, P < 0.001). In conclusion, CPREzy was associated with significant improvements in ECC performance. Further animal and clinical studies are required to validate this finding in vivo and to see if it translates to an improvement in outcome in human victims of cardiac arrest.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

A comparison of functional mobility in standard vs. ultralight wheelchairs as measured by performance on a community obstacle course.

PURPOSE: Appropriate wheelchair prescription requires maximizing user function while justifying cost. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in a user's performance of mobility skills (on a community obstacle course) between an ultralight (UWC) and standard wheelchair (SWC). SUBJECTS: Sixty healthy adults (mean = 28.3 years) without wheelchair experience performed one course trial. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to an UWC or a SWC. Researchers recorded time for completion, Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), and number, location, and types of errors committed. Errors included contact of WC and any obstacle, front casters leaving the ground, or loss of directional control (veering). RESULTS: A MANOVA of the data (p < 0.05) showed a significant difference in numbers of contact errors (higher in the SWC) and castor errors (higher in the UWC) between the two wheelchairs. Number of veering errors, time to complete, and RPE were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in wheelchair design can lead to differences in a user's performance of functional mobility skills. Choice of wheelchair may affect a user's ability to be independent in a community setting.

Adult↗