单纯胸外心脏按压技术推广及普及的调研

Research on the promotion and popularization of the technique of simple chest cardiac compression

目的比较接受不同心肺复苏(CPR)流程培训的无医学背景人员对CPR知识及技术的掌握程度以及保持时间,以检验单纯心脏按压技术在CPR培训中的实用性。方法随机招募合肥市200名无医学背景的成年人,随机分为对照组和实验组,每组100名。设计CPR调查问卷,培训前对参加培训人员进行问卷调查。对实验组培训时采用简化的CPR流程,包括识别心搏骤停(CA)并呼救、进行胸外心脏按压;对照组培训时采用传统的CPR流程,包括识别CA并呼救、进行胸外心脏按压、口对口人工呼吸等。在培训完毕及培训结束后6个月对所有人员进行CPR技能考核。结果①在调查问卷中显示非医学背景的人员对CPR知晓率普遍较低(10%),且在传统CPR流程中公众对进行口对口人工呼吸接受率较低(29%),简化后的CPR流程普遍被公众所接受(89%);②实验组和对照组在培训结束时技能考核结果比较差异无统计学意义(分:72.28±8.33比72.05±8.65,P>0.05);在培训结束后6个月实验组技能考核分数明显高于对照组(分:71.81±8.36比63.64±12.25,P<0.05);且实验组CPR技能考核结果显示,结束后6个月技能考核分数与结束时比较差异无统计学意义(分:71.81±8.36比72.28±8.33,P>0.05);而对照组培训结束后6个月技能考核分数明显低于培训结束时(分:63.64±12.25比72.05±8.65,P<0.05)。结论公众在传统及简化的CPR流程中更加倾向于接受简化后的CPR流程,且简化后的CPR流程救助者更易掌握及技能保持的时间更加长久,使被救助者得到更大的获益,并使CPR知识及技术更容易得以推广及普及。

Objective To compare the understanding and operation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR)without medical background under different CPR training process and to test the practicability of compression-only techniques in CPR training.Methods A total of 200 adults without medical backgrounds in Hefei were randomly divided into a control group and an experimental group,with 100 adults in each group.A CPR questionnaire was designed,and the participants were investigated before the training.The experimental group was trained with a simplified CPR process,including identifying cardiac arrest(CA)and calling for help,and performing chest compressions;in contrast,the control group was trained with the standard CPR process,including identifying CA,calling for help,performing chest compressions,and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,etc.After the end of training and 6 months after training,CPR skills were assessed.Results①The questionnaire showed that the awareness rate of non-medical background personnel on CPR was generally low(10%),and the public acceptance rate of mouth-to-mouth artificial respiration in the traditional CPR process was low(29%),and the simplified CPR process was well accepted by the public(89%);②There was no significant difference in skill assessment results between the experimental group and the control group at the end of the training(score:72.28±8.33 vs.72.05±8.65,P>0.05);however,6 months after training,the skill assessment score of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group(score:71.81±8.36 vs.63.64±12.25,P<0.05);in addition,there was no significant difference of the experimental group at the end of training and within 6 months after the training(score:71.81±8.36 vs.72.28±8.33,P>0.05);furthermore,the score of skill assessment in the control group within 6 months after training was significantly lower than that at the end of training(score:63.64±12.25 vs.72.05±8.65,P<0.05).Conclusions The public is more inclined to accept the simplified CPR process than the standard CPR process.Simplified CPR process is easier for the rescuers to master and maintained for longer,which may benefit more cardiac arrest suffers.It also help CPR knowledge and technology more easily promoted and popularized.