The willingness of final year medical and dental students to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an Asian community

Background Despite the importance of early effective chest compressions to improve the chance of survival of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victim, it is still largely unknown how willing our Malaysian population is to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Aims We conducted a voluntary, anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey of a group of 164 final year medical students and 60 final year dental students to unravel their attitudes towards performing bystander CPR. Methods Using a 4-point Likert scale of “definitely yes,” “probably yes,” “probably no,” and “definitely no,” the students were asked to rate their willingness to perform bystander CPR under three categories: chest compressions with mouth-to-mouth ventilation (CC + MMV), chest compressions with mask-to-mouth ventilation (CC + PMV), and chest compressions only (CC). Under each category, the students were given ten hypothetical victim scenarios. Categorical data analysis was done using the McNemar test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact test where appropriate. For selected analysis, “definitely yes” and “probably yes” were recoded as a “positive response.” Results Generally, we found that only 51.4% of the medical and 45.5% of the dental students are willing to perform bystander CPR. When analyzed under different hypothetical scenarios, we found that, except for the scenario where the victim is their own family member, all other scenarios showed a dismally low rate of positive responses in the category of CC + MMV, but their willingness was significantly improved under the CC + PMV and CC categories. Conclusion This study shows that there are unique sociocultural factors that contribute to the reluctance of our students to perform CC + MMV. Keywords Cardiopulmonary resuscitation Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation Basic cardiac life support Asian communit

Practical examination of bystanders performing Basic Life Support in Germany: a prospective manikin study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In an out-of-hospital emergency situation bystander intervention is essential for a sufficient functioning of the chain of rescue. The basic measures of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (Basic Life Support – BLS) by lay people are therefore definitely part of an effective emergency service of a patient needing resuscitation. Relevant knowledge is provided to the public by various course conceptions. The learning success concerning a one day first aid course ("LSM" course in Germany) has not been much investigated in the past. We investigated to what extent lay people could perform BLS correctly in a standardised manikin scenario. An aim of this study was to show how course repetitions affected success in performing BLS.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The "LSM course" was carried out in a standardised manner. We tested prospectively 100 participants in two groups (<b>Group 1: </b>Participants with previous attendance of a BLS course; <b>Group 2: </b>Participants with no previous attendance of a BLS course) in their practical abilities in BLS after the course. Success parameter was the correct performance of BLS in accordance with the current ERC guidelines.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-two (22%) of the 100 investigated participants obtained satisfactory results in the practical performance of BLS. Participants with repeated participation in BLS obtained significantly better results (<b>Group 1: </b>32.7% vs. <b>Group 2: </b>10.4%; p < 0.01) than course participants with no relevant previous knowledge.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Only 22% of the investigated participants at the end of a "LSM course" were able to perform BLS satisfactorily according to the ERC guidelines. Participants who had previously attended comparable courses obtained significantly better results in the practical test. Through regular repetitions it seems to be possible to achieve, at least on the manikin, an improvement of the results in bystander resuscitation and, consequently, a better patient outcome. To validate this hypothesis further investigations are recommended by specialised societies.</p