Objective: To compare two teaching methodologies for PROCES (a basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation (b-CPR) programme for secondary school students): one exclusively performed by school teachers (study group) and another by a mixed team of school teachers and healthcare providers (control group).
Methods: According to their preferences, teachers chose either method and students were consequently assigned to the control or study group. All participants took a 10 multiple-choice question exam regarding b-CPR skills twice: immediately after PROCES and one year later. Eight or more correct answers was considered satisfactory learning. Results between groups were compared. Associations between satisfactory learning and some student characteristics were analysed.
Results: Immediately after PROCES, 442 students (219 in the study group and 223 in the control group) took the exam. The percentage of satisfactory learning was not different: 67.1% in the study group and 64.6% in the control group. Immediate satisfactory learning was related to the absence of pending subjects in the control (odds ratio (OR) 2.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.64) and study (OR 5.87, 95% CI 1.22 to 28.20) groups. One year later, a greater percentage of retention of b-CRP skills was detected in the study group (57.1% vs 40.6%; p = 0.01). The absence of any pending subject (OR 6.86, 95% CI 1.83 to 25.66) was independently associated with better retention in the study group, but not the control group.
Conclusions: Secondary school teachers, previously trained in b-CPR, can teach these skills effectively to 14–16-year-old students using PROCES. The retention of b-CPR skills is greater with this methodology compared with a more standardised programme.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This work was partly supported by a grant from Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias del Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo (FIS PI-070073).
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval The ethics committee from the hospital approved the study.
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.