志愿者对呼吸心搏骤停患者实施现场救治的意愿分析:心肺复苏培训前后结果比较

摘要

目的 评价心肺复苏(CPR)培训对呼吸心搏骤停患者实施现场救治意愿的影响.方法 通过问卷调查,分析2017年1月至2018年6月来自云南省急救中心364名志愿者(含14例复训人员)在CPR培训前后不愿意实施CPR现场救治的原因,评价培训对志愿者CPR意愿的影响.结果 共发放364份调查问卷,回收有效问卷364份,回收率为100%.调查问卷内容分析显示,与培训前比较,志愿者在CPR培训后下列6种不愿意实施现场CPR的比例均显著降低,差异均有统计学意义〔对自己操作技能无信心:20.3%(74/364)比83.2%(303/364),无法识别哪类患者需要CPR :25.5%(93/364)比87.1%(317/364),害怕口对口人工呼吸会感染传染病:30.2%(110/364)比82.4%(300/364),担心胸外按压导致骨折:23.4%(85/364)比86.8%(316/364),担心胸外按压定位不准确:12.4%(45/364)比82.4%(300/364),害怕承担后续的法律责任:14.3%(52/364)比89.8%(327/364),均P＜0.05〕;而下列3种愿意实施现场CPR的比例与培训前比较均显著增高,差异均有统计学意义〔志愿者在培训后愿意对陌生人现场实施CPR:83.2%(303/364)比54.9%(200/364),愿意对朋友、同事、同学等熟人现场实施CPR :83.5%(304/364)比58.2%(212/364),愿意对家人现场实施CPR :84.6%(308/364)比61.8%(225/364),均P＜0.05〕.结论 对志愿者进行CPR培训后可明显提高其对呼吸心搏骤停患者实施现场救治的意愿,但部分志愿者对陌生人仍存在实施CPR意愿的障碍.%Objective To evaluate the impact of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training on the willingness to perform on-site rescue for patients with apnea and cardiac arrest. Methods Through questionnaire survey, the analyses on the differences in the results of evaluating various indicators in CPR Willingness Questionnaire in 364 willingness (including 14 recurrent training personnel) of Yunnan Emergency Center from January 2017 to June 2018 before and after CPR training were carried out in order to observe the impact of training on willingness CPR willingness. Results A total of 364 questionnaires were distributed and 364 valid questionnaires were recovered, with a recovery rate of 100%. Compared with those before the CPR training, the analyses of the contents of the questionnaire showed that the proportions of following 6 types of volunteer who were reluctant to implement CPR on site begore training were significantly lower after CPR training [no confidence in their own operational skills: 20.3% (74/364) vs. 83.2% (303/364), being impossible to identify the patients requiring CPR: 25.5% (93/364) vs. 87.1% (317/364), fear of mouth-to-mouth artificial respiration to contract infectious diseases: 30.2% (110/364) vs. 82.4% (300/364), worried about chest compressions leading to bone fractures: 23.3% (85/364) vs. 86.8% (316/364), worried about the inaccurate positioning of chest compressions: 12.4% (45/364) vs. 82.4% (300/364) and fear of taking legal responsibility: 14.3% (52/364) vs. 89.8% (327/364)], and the differences were statistically significant (all P < 0.05); after training, the following 3 kinds of proportions of carrying out CPR were much higher than those before training [volunteers were willing to implement CPR on site for strangers: 83.2% (303/364) vs. 54.9% (200/364), volunteers were willing to implement CPR on site for friends, colleagues, classmates and other acquaintances: 83.5% (304/364) vs. 58.2% (212/364), volunteers were willing to implement CPR on site for family members: 84.6% (308/364) vs. 61.8% (225/364)], the differences being statistically significant (all P < 0.05). Conclusion CPR training for volunteers can improve their willingness to perform on-site rescue for patients with apnea and cardiac arrest, but there are still partial barriers of CPR willingness for strangers.