Effect of prebriefing in cardiopulmonary resuscitation education for laypeople on educational effectiveness and satisfaction

Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is important for improving survival rates and neurological outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, laypeople often have psychological barriers to performing CPR, even if they have received training. Prebriefing provides psychological stability to the participants, enabling them to concentrate more comfortably during simulation. However, previous studies have mainly focused on simulation-based education for medical professionals, and no study has focused on prebriefing for laypeople. Therefore, we developed a structured prebriefing for laypeople and applied it to their CPR education to investigate its effect on educational effectiveness and satisfaction. This group randomization study was conducted from 09 November 2022 to 09 December 2022. Individuals aged ≥18 years who participated in CPR training as non-medical personnel were included. A 60-min CPR education focusing on hands-on skills was conducted. The Prebriefing Experience Scale for laypersons (PESL) was developed and surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale by modifying the Prebriefing Experience Scale for medical personnel based on existing research. During the study, a total of 382 people applied for education in 29 classes. Owing to logistical constraints resulting in randomization failure within the cohort of 10 classes, 82 participants were affected and subsequently excluded. In addition, 12 participants were excluded because of incomplete responses in the PESL survey. Ultimately, the experimental cohort consisted of 139 participants distributed across 10 classes, and the control group comprised 149 participants within the 9 classes. No difference in age and sex was found between the two groups. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups across all categories of the PESL assessment. In this study, when structured prebriefing was conducted on the general public, no statistically significant differences were found in PESL compared with conventional prebriefing. However, more improved research is needed.

Heart arrest; Education; Public Health

[1] Yan S, Gan Y, Jiang N, Wang R, Chen Y, Luo Z, et al. The global survival rate among adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care. 2020; 24: 61.

[2] Coons SJ, Guy MC. Performing bystander CPR for sudden cardiac arrest: behavioral intentions among the general adult population in Arizona. Resuscitation. 2009; 80: 334–340.

[3] Kragholm K, Wissenberg M, Mortensen RN, Hansen SM, Malta Hansen C, Thorsteinsson K, et al. Bystander efforts and 1-year outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. New England Journal of Medicine. 2017; 376: 1737–1747.

[4] Lee MJ, Hwang SO, Cha KC, Cho GC, Yang HJ, Rho TH. Influence of nationwide policy on citizens’ awareness and willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2013; 84: 889–894.

[5] Park GJ, Song KJ, Shin SD, Lee KW, Ahn KO, Lee EJ, et al. Timely bystander CPR improves outcomes despite longer EMS times. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2017; 35: 1049–1055.

[6] Sasson C, Rogers MAM, Dahl J, Kellermann AL. Predictors of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2010; 3: 63–81.

[7] Stiell I, Nichol G, Wells G, De Maio V, Nesbitt L, Blackburn J, et al. Health-related quality of life is better for cardiac arrest survivors who received citizen cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Circulation. 2003; 108: 1939–1944.

[8] Urban J, Thode H, Stapleton E, Singer AJ. Current knowledge of and willingness to perform Hands-only™ CPR in laypersons. Resuscitation. 2013; 84: 1574–1578.

[9] Wissenberg M, Lippert FK, Folke F, Weeke P, Hansen CM, Christensen EF, et al. Association of national initiatives to improve cardiac arrest management with rates of bystander intervention and patient survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2013; 310: 1377.

[10] Blewer AL, Leary M, Fredericks AC, Andersen JC, Decker CS, Esposito EC, et al. Self-reported barriers to CPR education among laypersons offered training. America Heart Association. 2010; 122: A248.

[11] Fratta KA, Bouland AJ, Vesselinov R, Levy MJ, Seaman KG, Lawner BJ, et al. Evaluating barriers to community CPR education. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2020; 38: 603–609.

[12] Ikeda DJ, Buckler DG, Li J, Agarwal AK, Di Taranti LJ, Kurtz J, et al. Dissemination of CPR video self-instruction materials to secondary trainees: results from a hospital-based CPR education trial. Resuscitation. 2016; 100: 45–50.

[13] Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation. Simulation in Healthcare: Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2014; 9: 339–349.

[14] Kolbe M, Grande B, Spahn DR. Briefing and debriefing during simulation-based training and beyond: content, structure, attitude and setting. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2015; 29: 87–96.

[15] Page-Cutrara K, Turk M. Impact of prebriefing on competency performance, clinical judgment and experience in simulation: an experimental study. Nurse Education Today. 2017; 48: 78–83.

[16] Reed SJ. Debriefing experience scale: development of a tool to evaluate the student learning experience in debriefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2012; 8: e211–e217.

[17] Iwami T, Nichol G, Hiraide A, Hayashi Y, Nishiuchi T, Kajino K, et al. Continuous improvements in “chain of survival” increased survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Circulation. 2009; 119: 728–734.

[18] Girotra S, van Diepen S, Nallamothu BK, Carrel M, Vellano K, Anderson ML, et al. Regional variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival in the United States. Circulation. 2016; 133: 2159–2168.

[19] Cheng A, Magid DJ, Auerbach M, Bhanji F, Bigham BL, Blewer AL, et al. Part 6: resuscitation education science: 2020 american heart association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2020; 142: S551–S579.

[20] Tanigawa K, Iwami T, Nishiyama C, Nonogi H, Kawamura T. Are trained individuals more likely to perform bystander CPR? An observational study. Resuscitation. 2011; 82: 523–528.

[21] Roh YS, Ahn J, Kim E, Kim J. Effects of prebriefing on psychological safety and learning outcomes. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2018; 25: 12–19.

[22] Watts SO, Curtis A, Ware KS, Chidume T, Jones MC. Examining the impact of structured, reflective prebriefing on student performance during simulation. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2022; 43: E115–E117.

[23] Cheng A, Nadkarni VM, Mancini MB, Hunt EA, Sinz EH, Merchant RM, et al. Resuscitation education science: educational strategies to improve outcomes from cardiac arrest: a scientific statement from the American heart association. Circulation. 2018; 138: e82–e122.