Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Are we doing ineffective CPR?
  1. Lisa A DelSignore1,
  2. Robert C Tasker1,2
  1. 1Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesia, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lisa A DelSignore, Division of Critical Care, Department of Anesthesia, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Bader 634, Boston, MA 02115, USA; lisa.delsignore{at}childrens.harvard.edu

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Being competent in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a skill in which all paediatricians need expertise. Proficiency in CPR has, traditionally, been acquired through on-the-job training and live-instructor classes using simulated scenarios with manikins. Hospitals require paediatricians to obtain annual certification of CPR proficiency through demonstration of knowledge in a written or computer-based test, as well as by performance during direct observation of technique using a manikin. However, it is well recognised that such performance ‘extinguishes’ (ie, deteriorates) rapidly within 3–6 months after initial training if knowledge and skills are not reinforced by subsequent learning and practice.1 Thus, a question remains: how often are we routinely performing effective CPR2 when it happens outside of an observed and tested educational session?

In this issue, Gregson et al3 provide evidence demonstrating that simulated CPR in a resuscitation manikin can be performed better when healthcare providers are given direct and real-time feedback from an automated audiovisual feedback device. The device evaluates the rate, depth, force applied, chest recoil and pauses during the …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All of the authors participated in the conception, design, execution and writing of the editorial.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles