Introduction: Basic Life Support (BLS) is a crucial intervention in cases of sudden
cardiac arrest, where the rapid and correct performance of chest compressions (CC) plays a
vital role. Standard manikins are commonly used for BLS training; however, due to
financial and organizational constraints, their use is not always feasible in all settings.
Consequently, alternative training models have emerged that could improve the
accessibility of BLS education. Purpose: The aim of this thesis was to evaluate the
suitability of two alternative models for teaching chest compressions compared with a
standard BLS training manikin. The study focused on comparing the performance of chest
compressions using the alternative foam heart model and the eco-model, particularly with
regard to identifying the correct compression site and achieving the recommended
compression rate. Methods: The study was conducted in a simulated environment and
included 54 healthcare students. Participants performed chest compressions on three
different training models: a standard BLS manikin, an alternative foam heart model placed
on a torso silhouette, and an alternative eco-model. Chest compressions were performed on
each model for one minute. Compression rate was measured using a Kistler 9286 AA force
plate. In addition to the objective measurements, participants evaluated each model using
an evaluation questionnaire. Results: All participants correctly identified the appropriate
chest compression site on all three models. Differences in chest compression rate were
observed between the models. The highest mean compression rate was recorded with the
standard manikin (112 ± 13 compressions/min), followed by the foam heart model (107 ±
17 compressions/min) and the eco-model (106 ± 19 compressions/min). All mean values
were within the recommended compression rate range. Participants rated the standard
manikin as the most suitable training model, followed by the foam heart model, while the
eco-model received the lowest suitability ratings. Despite certain limitations, participants
recognized the potential of both alternative models for teaching the basic elements of BLS.
Discussion and conclusion: The findings indicate that both alternative models are suitable
for teaching the basic elements of chest compressions, as they enable learners to identify
the correct compression site and achieve an appropriate compression rate. Nevertheless,
the standard BLS manikin remains the preferred training tool in healthcare education
because it provides a more realistic experience during skill acquisition. The alternative
models may be particularly useful in settings where standard manikins are unavailable and
could contribute to improving the accessibility and dissemination of BLS training.
|
