Analysis of an Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support Provider Course in Korea

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to provide direction to improvement of advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) training in Korea. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the questionnaire written by 55 instructors of the 31 institutions registered in the Korean Association of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (KACPR) from 2009 and 2010. The contents of the questionnaire consisted of an evaluation of the ACLS curriculum, modification of the ACLS curriculum, problems of ACLS training, and other open-ended answers. RESULTS: In this questionnaire, the result for assessment of the lecture on acute coronary syndrome was intermediate, that answer was given by the majority, 40.0%. The result for assessment of the lecture on stroke was intermediate, that answer was given by the majority, 40.0%. In addition, the result for the necessity of the lecture on acute coronary syndrome was intermediate, 25.5%, which was the most common response. The result for the necessity of the lecture on stroke was intermediate, 27.3%, which was the most common response. In the ACLS curriculum, 14.5% of respondents responded that simulation curriculum should be strengthened; 20.0% of participants responded that training on equipment and medical technique should be enhanced. CONCLUSION: Lecture without practice should be avoided and simulation-oriented education should be strengthened in the ACLS course.

Effect of Public re-education in willingness to Perform bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)

PURPOSE: Effectiveness of the performance of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has a decisive impact on the outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who receive it. After initial CPR education, CPR performance for those trained declines over time. Public education in CPR is commonly recommended to be repeated every 2 years. In this study, we evaluated the willingness of those who have been CPR trained to perform CPR as impacted by their training experience. METHODS: The staff of a small firm received 2 hours of primary CPR education. Two years later, their CPR training was repeated in an identical manner. Participants answered a questionnaire regarding their willingness to perform bystander CPR. Those who answered that they wouldn't perform bystander CPR were asked to select their reason. We also inquired about what they viewed as the most difficult phase of CPR performance, and collected their opinions about the overall necessity and appropriate time period for re-education. RESULTS: Those who answered 'definitely yes' to 'willingness to perform to CPR' increased from 36.6% before primary CPR education to 74.2% afterward. But 2 years later and before re-education, only 30.1% answered 'definitely yes' to 'willingness to perform CPR'. Meanwhile, 41.2% and 29.4% answered that 'fear of legal liability' and 'fear of poor knowledge/performance' were the reasons why they would not perform bystander CPR. Ventilation was the most difficult stage in CPR identified by 34% of the participants, and 18.4% answered that chest compression was the most difficult stage in CPR. 93.6% answered that they should receive CPR re-education. CONCLUSION: The willingness to perform bystander CPR declined significantly after 2 years. Therefore routine public re-education for bystander CPR is necessary.