Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial

While just-in-time (JIT) training is associated with time and cost savings, limited evidence directly compares layperson CPR performance using JIT videos to in-person CPR courses. We measured layperson CPR performance using a JIT video compared to an in-person course or no training.

Adult employees at a professional sports stadium were randomized to perform CPR in a simulated scenario a) after completing an AHA HeartSaver® course, b) using a JIT training video, or c) neither (control). CPR performance was assessed by trained evaluators and QCPR-enabled simulators. The primary outcome was the performance of pre-defined critical actions. Participants were blinded to study objectives and trained evaluators used standardized checklists.

Of 230 eligible subjects, 221 were included in analysis, without significant differences in group characteristics. Correct CPR performance was low, though significantly higher in the AHA group (AHA: 40%, 95%CI 28-51; JIT: 15%, 95%CI 8-26; control 10%, 95%CI 4-19). Compression fraction was significantly greater in the AHA group (90%, IQR 69-98) compared to JIT (61%, IQR 29-89) or control (65%, IQR 33-93). An AED was requested more frequently in the AHA group (47%) than in the JIT (15%) or control (10%) groups.

While overall performance of correct CPR skills was best following a traditional CPR course, laypersons using real-time video training performed as well as those taking an AHA HeartSaver® course on several key measures including time to chest compressions and compression rate.Trial Registration.NCT05983640.