Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) competency retention among registered nurses in critical care versus general care unit

  1. Yahia AL-Helih
  2. Majeda AL-Ruzzieh
  3. Sami AL-Yatim
  4. Mohammad Alawneh
  5. Saleh Abu-AL Haija
  6. Faten Odeh

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Cardiac arrest is a sudden and life-threatening event resulting in an end of cardiac activity, necessitating immediate intervention to prevent fatalities. In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) presents a critical medical emergency, demanding swift and competent response. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a key lifesaving intervention for IHCA, but the frequency of CPR events and the decay of CPR skills and knowledge among healthcare professionals (HCPs) raise concerns.

Methods and Results

In a prospective quasi-experimental study with no control group, 263 registered nurses (121 in critical care units and 144 in general care units) were assessed for CPR skills and knowledge retention at various time intervals. The result showed that overall decay after six months are almost the same for both groups. Knowledge decay started for both groups after one month and for both groups the highest level of decay was reported after three months, however the decay pattern was quite different. General units mean differences showed sudden sharp decline on three months which was not reported with critical care nurses who showed steady decay reaching to six months.

Conclusions

In this study, it is noteworthy that nurses in critical care units exhibited consistent decay in skills and knowledge, while those in general care units demonstrated a progressive decline over time.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/10117156.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes The introduction explains the objective. However, it would be better if the introduction could be shortened.
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate There is a lack of a control group.
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Highly supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Somewhat appropriate and clear A graphical representation would be better.
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Neither clearly nor unclearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Somewhat likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, as it is

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2023.10.16.23297121v1 on medRxiv