Development controller and feedback of Chiang Mai automated external defibrillation trainer and manikin for basic life support training

Objectives Basic Life Support (BLS) should be taught to everyone; however, there is a lack of Automated External Defibrillation (AED) trainers in Thailand due to the cost of the imported equipment. An AED trainer, manikin, and manikin controller system was locally developed which can display training results to help reduce the cost. Methods This is a descriptive study of a locally developed controller and feedback system, the Chiang Mai AED trainer and manikin. The controller was examined by 5 BLS instructors using a 10-point scale questionnaire consisting of 3 questions to evaluate the efficacy of the device. Correlation among BLS instructors was also calculated. Results The controller and feedback system for the Chiang Mai AED trainer and manikin worked appropriately as intended. The instructor set up either a ‘shock advised’ or a ‘no shock advised’ scenario for 2 two-minute chest compressions. The AED trainer responded promptly when the electrode pads were attached to the manikin. The controller was also able to display compression depth, compression speed, chest recoils, rescue breaths, and time to first defibrillation. Evaluation of the controller using a 10-point scale resulted in a median of 27 (interquartile range 26-29) out of 30. Intraclass correlation was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90-0.99, p < 0.001). Conclusions The controller for the Chiang Mai AED trainer and manikin is effective for use in BLS training. Chiang Mai Medical Journal 2021;60(1):87-98. doi 10.12982/CMUMEDJ.2021.08

Download Full-text

News in basic life support and semi-automated external defibrillation

Medicina Intensiva (English Edition) ◽

10.1016/j.medine.2011.03.003 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 35 (5) ◽

pp. 299-306

Author(s):

J.B. López-Messa ◽

P. Herrero-Ansola ◽

J.L. Pérez-Vela ◽

H. Martín-Hernández

Keyword(s):

Basic Life Support ◽

Life Support ◽

Automated External Defibrillation

Download Full-text

Comparing Basic Life Support Serious Gaming Scores With Hands-on Training Platform Performance Scores: Pilot Simulation Study for Basic Life Support Training

JMIR Serious Games ◽

10.2196/24166 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (4) ◽

pp. e24166

Author(s):

Mehmet Emin Aksoy

Keyword(s):

Basic Life Support ◽

Life Support ◽

Performance Data ◽

Serious Game ◽

Sensor Data ◽

Average Score ◽

Compression Depth ◽

Serious Gaming ◽

Hands On ◽

Depth Compression

Background Serious games enrich simulation-based health care trainings and improve knowledge, skills, and self-confidence of learners while entertaining them. Objective A platform which can combine performance data from a basic life support (BLS) serious game app and hands-on data based on the same scoring system is not available in the market. The aim of this study was to create such a platform and investigate whether performance evaluation of BLS trainings would be more objective compared to conventional Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) examinations if these evaluations were carried out with the platform which combines OSCE scoring criteria with sensor data retrieved from the simulator’s sensors. Methods Participants were 25 volunteers (11 men [44.0%] and 14 [56.0] women) among Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University students without prior knowledge of the BLS protocol. A serious game module has been created for teaching learners the European Resuscitation Council Basic Life Support 2015 protocol. A second module called the hands-on module was designed for educators. This module includes a checklist used for BLS OSCE examinations and can retrieve sensor data such as compression depth, compression frequency, and ventilation volume from the manikin (CPR Lilly; 3B Scientific GmbH) via Bluetooth. Data retrieved from the sensors of the manikin enable educators to evaluate learners in a more objective way. Performance data retrieved from the serious gaming module have been combined with the results of the hands-on module. Data acquired from the hands-on module have also been compared with the results of conventional OSCE scores of the participants, which were obtained by watching the videos of the same trainings. Results Participants were considered successful in the game if they scored 80/100 or above. Overall, participants scored 80 or above in an average of 1.4 (SD 0.65) trials. The average BLS serious game score was 88.3/100 (SD 5.17) and hands-on average score was 70.7/100 (SD 17.3), whereas the OSCE average score was 84.4/100 (SD 12.9). There was no statistically significant correlation between success on trials (score ≥80/100), serious game, hands-on training app, and OSCE scores (Spearman rho test, P>.05). The mean BLS serious game score of the participants was 88.3/100 (SD 5.17), whereas their mean hands-on training app score was 70.7/100 (SD 17.3) and OSCE score was 84.4/100 (SD 12.9). Conclusions Although scoring criteria for OSCE and hands-on training app were identical, OSCE scores were 17% higher than hands-on training app scores. After analyzing the difference of scores between hands-on training app and OSCE, it has been revealed that these differences originate from scoring parameters such as compression depth, compression frequency, and ventilation volume. These data suggest that evaluation of BLS trainings would be more objective if these evaluations were carried out with the modality, which combines visual OSCE scoring criteria with sensor data retrieved from the simulator’s sensors. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04533893; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04533893

Download Full-text