Introduction: Coordination of the tasks of performing chest compressions and defibrillation can lead to communication challenges that may prolong time spent off the chest. The purpose of this study was to determine whether defibrillation provided by the provider performing chest compressions led to a decrease in peri-shock pauses as compared to defibrillation administered by a second provider, in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario.

Methods: This was a randomized, controlled study measuring pauses in chest compressions for defibrillation in a simulated cardiac arrest model. We approached hospital providers with current CPR certification for participation between July, 2011 and October, 2011. Volunteers were randomized to control (facilitator-administered defibrillation) or experimental (compressor-administered defibrillation) groups. All participants completed one minute of chest compressions on a mannequin in a shockable rhythm prior to administration of defibrillation. We measured and compared pauses for defibrillation in both groups.

Results: Out of 200 total participants, we analyzed data from 197 defibrillations. Compressor-initiated defibrillation resulted in a significantly lower pre-shock hands-off time (0.57 s; 95% CI: 0.47-0.67) compared to facilitator-initiated defibrillation (1.49 s; 95% CI: 1.35-1.64). Furthermore, compressor-initiated defibrillation resulted in a significantly lower peri-shock hands-off time (2.77 s; 95% CI: 2.58-2.95) compared to facilitator-initiated defibrillation (4.25 s; 95% CI: 4.08-4.43).

Conclusion: Assigning the responsibility for shock delivery to the provider performing compressions encourages continuous compressions throughout the charging period and decreases total time spent off the chest. However, as this was a simulation-based study, clinical implementation is necessary to further evaluate these potential benefits. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(2):246–250.]

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) knowledge of hospital providers and whether knowledge affects performance of effective compressions during a simulated cardiac arrest.

Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated the CPR knowledge and performance of medical students and ED personnel with current CPR certification. We collected data regarding compression rate, hand placement, depth, and recoil via a questionnaire to determine knowledge, and then we assessed performance using 60 seconds of compressions on a simulation mannequin.

Results: Data from 200 enrollments were analyzed by evaluators blinded to subject knowledge. Regarding knowledge, 94% of participants correctly identified parameters for rate, 58% for hand placement, 74% for depth, and 94% for recoil. Participants identifying an effective rate of  ≥100 performed compressions at a significantly higher rate than participants identifying <100 (µ=117 vs. 94, p<0.001). Participants identifying correct hand placement performed significantly more compressions adherent to guidelines than those identifying incorrect placement (µ=86% vs. 72%, p<0.01). No significant differences were found in depth or recoil performance based on knowledge of guidelines.

Conclusion: Knowledge of guidelines was variable; however, CPR knowledge significantly impacted certain aspects of performance, namely rate and hand placement, whereas depth and recoil were not affected. Depth of compressions was poor regardless of prior knowledge, and knowledge did not correlate with recoil performance. Overall performance was suboptimal and additional training may be needed to ensure consistent, effective performance and therefore better outcomes after cardiopulmonary arrest. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(4):404-408.]