Life Support Courses: Are They Effective?,☆☆,

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70095-1Get rights and content

Abstract

Study objective: To determine the effectiveness of life support courses for health care providers on the basis of one of three outcomes: (1) patient mortality and morbidity, (2) retention of knowledge or skills, and (3) change in practice behavior. Methods: English-language articles from 1975 to 1992 were identified through MEDLINE and ERIC searches, bibliographies of articles, and current abstracts. Studies were considered relevant if they included a study population of life support providers, an intervention of any of the identified life support courses, and assessment of at least one of the three listed outcomes. Relevant studies were selected and validity scores were assigned to them by agreement of two independent reviewers, using a structured form to assess validity. Data on setting, methods, participants, intervention, and outcomes were then abstracted and verified. Results: Seventeen of 67 identified studies pertaining to life support courses met the inclusion criteria. (1) All three mortality and morbidity studies indicated a positive impact, with an overall odds ratio of .28 (95% confidence interval [CI], .22 to .37). (2) No net increase in scores was found in 5 of 8 studies of retention of knowledge and in 8 of 9 studies of skills retention. Two of three studies reporting refresher activities yielded positive effects on knowledge retention. Outcomes were not significantly different between groups taught with modular or didactic techniques. (3) Studies assessing behavioral outcome were methodologically weak. Conclusion: Among providers, retention of knowledge and skills acquired by participation in support courses is poor. However, refresher activities increase knowledge retention. Modular courses are as good as lectures for learning course material. There is evidence that use of the Advanced Trauma Life Support course has decreased mortality and morbidity. Further studies of patient outcome and provider behaviors are warranted. [Jabbour M, Osmond MH, Klassen TP: Life support courses: Are they effective? Ann Emerg Med December 1996;28:690-698.]

Section snippets

INTRODUCTION

Life support programs designed to improve outcome of seriously ill or injured patients have been developed and taught since the early 1960s. General acceptance and confidence in these programs has been evidenced by an exponential increase in participation by a variety of caregivers, from lay persons to health care professionals.1, 2, 3, 4 Many health care institutions now require their employees to successfully complete cardiac life support courses.5 Similarly, training in pediatric life

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the purposes of this review, a life support course was defined as any one of the following: Basic Cardiac Life Support (BCLS), Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS), PALS, modified advanced pediatric life support (APLS), ATLS, or the Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP).

Original studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE and ERIC English-language articles (search terms available on request). Additional studies were identified through review of citations in the articles

RESULTS

A total of 67 studies pertaining to life support courses were found and evaluated (complete list available on request). No systematic reviews of life support courses were encountered. Although two review articles on BCLS and ACLS programs13, 14 were found, neither was a systematic review of the literature. For assessments of relevance, the reviewing authors agreed on 89% of citations (weighted k, .75; SE, .09). In all, 17 studies were deemed relevant. Of these, three15, 16, 17 examined

DISCUSSION

Although the degree of research in effectiveness of life support programs is greatly overshadowed by their demand, a small number of good studies have been done. This review represents a systematic identification and qualitative assessment of the relevant studies to date that address the issue of life support program effectiveness.

The three types of studies vary in their usefulness for determining changes in patient outcome as a result of life support training. Studies of mortality and

References (39)

  • MS Kramer et al.

    The biostatistics of concordance

    Clin Pharmacol Ther

    (1981)
  • The Standards of Reporting Trials Group

    A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials

    JAMA

    (1994)
  • AR Feinstein

    Clinical Epidemiology

  • MB Bracken

    Statistical methods for analysis of effects of treatment in overviews of randomized trials

  • The Cochrane Collaboration

    Guide to Using the Cochrane Review Manager Software (RevMan), Version 1.04

    (1994)
  • R Peto

    Why do we need systematic reviews of randomized trials?

    Stat Med

    (1987)
  • ME Mancini et al.

    Educational issues in basic and advanced cardiac life support

    J Cardiovasc Nursing

    (1988)
  • J Ali et al.

    Trauma outcome improves following the Advanced Trauma Life Support program in a developing country

    J Trauma

    (1993)
  • WJ Messick et al.

    The association of advanced life support training and decreased per capita trauma death rates: An analysis of 12,417 trauma deaths

    J Trauma

    (1992)
  • Cited by (79)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    From the Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Canada

    ☆☆

    Address for reprints: Mona Jabbour, MD, Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1H 8L1, 613-737-2318, Fax 613-738-4852

    Reprint no. 47/1/77455

    View full text