Stepwise approach to skills teaching in resuscitation: A systematic review.

Breckwoldt, Jan; Cheng, Adam; Lauridsen, Kasper G; Lockey, Andrew; Yeung, Joyce; Greif, Robert (2023). Stepwise approach to skills teaching in resuscitation: A systematic review. Resuscitation Plus, 16, p. 100457. Elsevier 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100457

Preview

Text 1-s2.0-S2666520423001005-main.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND). Download (337kB) | Preview

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of Peyton's four-step approach for teaching resuscitation skills with alternative approaches.

METHODS

For this systematic review, we followed the PICOST format (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) using Peyton's four-step approach as the standard. We included all studies analyzing skills training related to resuscitation and First Aid in any educational setting. Eligible were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (non-randomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, published conference abstracts, and case series where n ≥ 5). We excluded unpublished results (e.g. trial protocols), commentaries, editorials, reviews. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until November 10, 2020 (updated November 25, 2022) for publications in all languages as long as there was an English abstract. Titles and abstracts of the papers retrieved were screened, and eligible publications were analysed in full text. From the final set of papers, data were extracted into a spreadsheet, subsequently risk of bias assessment was performed (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I), and the certainty of evidence (using GRADE) for each paper was assessed. Screening of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and assessment of certainty of evidence were all performed by two independent researchers. This review was conducted in adherence with PRISMA standards and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023377398).

RESULTS

Overall, the search identified 2,574 studies from which 17 were included in the final analysis (14 RCTs, and 3 non-RCTs). The studies involved a total of 2,906 participants from various populations (from lay persons to health care professionals) and analysed nine different resuscitation skills being taught (ranging from chest compressions to needle cricotomy). The alternative teaching approaches ranged from two-steps to five-steps with various modifications of single steps. High methodological and clinical heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis from being conducted. The risk of bias assessment showed considerable variation between the studies ranging from 'low' to 'serious'. Across all studies, certainty of evidence was rated as very low due to imprecision and inconsistency. Overall, 14 out of 17 studies showed no difference in skill acquisition or retention when comparing Peyton's four steps to other stepwise approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Very low certainty evidence suggest that Peyton's four-step approach was not more effective in resuscitation skills training compared to alternative approaches.

FUNDING

None.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

27 since deposited on 07 Sep 2023
27 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item