首页> 外文期刊>国际护理科学(英文) >Effectiveness of combining manual external defibrillator and automated external defibrillator training for third-year nurse students
【24h】

Effectiveness of combining manual external defibrillator and automated external defibrillator training for third-year nurse students

机译:合成手动外部除颤器和三年护士学生自动除颤器训练的有效性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose:To assess the effectiveness of automated external defibrillator(AED)and manual external defibrillator(MED)training for third-year nurse students.Methods:We conducted post-demonstration and post-practice evaluation for MED defibrillation,and pre-training,post-demonstration,and post-practice evaluation for AED defibrillation.Results:Following MED training,time and confidence to defibrillate were improved significantly post-practice(p<0.001,p<0.001,respectively).In post-demonstration and postpractice evaluation,most students placed electrodes correctly(84.21%vs.80.70%),cleared before defibrillation(75.44%vs.89.47%),and performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation immediately after defibrillation(81.81%vs.94.44%);the evaluations were not statistically different(p=0.806,p=0.094,p=0.198,respectively).For AED training,time and confidence to defibrillate post-demonstration and post-practice were significantly improved(p<0.001 vs.p<0.001;p<0.001 vs.p<0.001,respectively)compared to that of pre-training;there was no obvious difference between the post-demonstration and postpractice evaluation(p=0.235,=0.346,respectively).Post-AED demonstration,most students could place electrodes correctly(85.96%),clear(91.23%),and perform CPR immediately after defibrillation(85.96%),which remained at a high level post-practice(94.74%,85.96%,82.46%,respectively);there was no significant difference between the two evaluations(p=0.203,p=0.557,p=0.776,respectively).Conclusion:Combining MED and AED defibrillation training is effective and feasible for third-year nurse students.Minimal training is effective for AED,while MED requires additional practice.
机译:目的:评估自动外部除颤器(AED)和手动外部除颤器(MED)培训的效力,为第三年护士学生培训。方法:我们对MED除颤进行了演示和实践后评估,并进行了预训练-Dememontration,以及对AED除颤的后练习评估。结果:在实践后显着改善MED培训,时间和信心,分别显着改善了练习后显着改善(分别为P <0.001,P <0.001)。在示范后和后诊断评估中,最多学生将电极正确放置(84.21%Vs.80.70%),在除颤前清除(75.44%vs.89.47%),并在除颤后立即进行心肺重新刺除(81.81%Vs.94.44%);评估没有统计学不同(P = 0.806,p = 0.094,p = 0.198,分别为0.198)。对于检测后的训练,时间和信心明显改善,显着改善了(P <0.001 Vs.p <0.001; p <0.001 Vs.p <0.001分别)与Pr相比电子培训;后示威性和诊所评价之间没有明显的差异(P = 0.235,= 0.346分别).Post-AED示范,大多数学生可以正确地放置电极(85.96%),清除(91.23%),在除颤后立即进行CPR(85.96%),其留在练习后的高水平(分别为94.74%,分别为82.46%,82.46%);两种评估之间没有显着差异(P = 0.203,P = 0.557 ,P = 0.776分别)。结论:组合MED和AED除颤培训对于第三年护士学生来说是有效和可行的。培训对AED有效,而MED需要额外的做法。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号