Willingness and obstacles of healthcare professionals to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. 100788
Author(s):  
Guozhong Zhou ◽  
Guangbing Lu ◽  
Oumin Shi ◽  
Xuemei Li ◽  
Zhenzhou Wang ◽  
...  
BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038712
Author(s):  
Yi Jiang ◽  
Bangsheng Wu ◽  
Long Long ◽  
Jiaxing Li ◽  
Xiaoqing Jin

ObjectivesThe incidence of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is low in China. CPR training could improve public attitudes and willingness, but at present, the attitudes of the public after online training are unclear. This study investigated individual attitudes towards CPR, the willingness to perform it in emergencies along with the main obstacles and the overall effects of online training.DesignQuestionnaires were distributed to investigate the public attitudes and willingness towards performing bystander CPR.SettingQuestionnaires were accessible after the online course ‘First Aid’.Participants1888 students who attended ‘First Aid’ from December 2019 to 1 January 2020 and then completed the questionnaire voluntarily.ResultsThe majority understood CPR (96.7%) and displayed a willingness to learn (98.4%) and to disseminate CPR knowledge (82.0%). Characteristics associated with more positive attitudes included women, the 26–35-year olds and those in medical-related occupations (p<0.05). Only 34.8% had CPR training before. Most people would willingly perform CPR on a close family member. Compared with the standard CPR (S-CPR), the public preferred chest compression-only CPR (CO-CPR) (p<0.01). The top three obstacles to performing CO-CPR were lack of confidence (26.7%), fear of harming the victim (23.4%) and causing legal trouble (20.7%), while regarding S-CPR, fear of disease transmission (22.9%) ranked second. Women, those in poor health and in medical-related occupations, were more likely to perform CPR (p<0.05). The confidence to perform CPR was improved remarkably after online training (p<0.05).ConclusionsThe overwhelming majority of respondents showed positive attitudes and willingness towards CPR. In some cases, there is still reluctance, especially towards S-CPR. Obstacles arise mainly due to lack of confidence in administering CPR, while online CPR training can markedly improve it. Therefore, we should focus on disseminating CPR knowledge, targeting those who are less willing to perform CPR and helping overcome their obstacles by online training.


Circulation ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 1907-1915 ◽  
Author(s):  
R A Berg ◽  
K B Kern ◽  
A B Sanders ◽  
C W Otto ◽  
R W Hilwig ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 127 (12) ◽  
pp. 1342-1350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Comilla Sasson ◽  
Hendrika Meischke ◽  
Benjamin S. Abella ◽  
Robert A. Berg ◽  
Bentley J. Bobrow ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Richard Chocron ◽  
Julia Jobe ◽  
Sally Guan ◽  
Madeleine Kim ◽  
Mia Shigemura ◽  
...  

Background Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a critical intervention to improve survival following out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest. We evaluated the quality of bystander CPR and whether performance varied according to the number of bystanders or provision of telecommunicator CPR (TCPR). Methods and Results We investigated non‐traumatic out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest occurring in a large metropolitan emergency medical system during a 6‐month period. Information about bystander care was ascertained through review of the 9‐1‐1 recordings in addition to emergency medical system and hospital records to determine bystander CPR status (none versus TCPR versus unassisted), the number of bystanders on‐scene, and CPR performance metrics of compression fraction and compression rate. Of the 428 eligible out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, 76.4% received bystander CPR including 43.7% unassisted CPR and 56.3% TCPR; 35.2% had one bystander, 33.3% had 2 bystanders, and 31.5% had ≥3 bystanders. Overall compression fraction was 59% with a compression rate of 88 per minute. CPR differed according to TCPR status (fraction=52%, rate=87 per minute for TCPR versus fraction=69%, rate=102 for unassisted CPR, P <0.05 for each comparison) and the number of bystanders (fraction=55%, rate=87 per minute for 1 bystander, fraction=59%, rate=89 for 2 bystanders, fraction=65%, rate=97 for ≥3 bystanders, test for trend P <0.05 for each metric). Additional bystander actions were uncommon to include rotation of compressors (3.1%) or application of an automated external defibrillator (8.0%). Conclusions Bystander CPR quality as gauged by compression fraction and rate approached guideline goals though performance depended upon the type of CPR and number of bystanders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document