1. Research Articles
  2. BLS Self-Learning vs Facilitator-Led Instruction
  3. BLS Self-Learning...

BLS Self-Learning vs Facilitator-Led Instruction

Aim of the study
To investigate whether pure self-learning without instructor support, resulted in the same BLS-competencies as facilitator-led learning, when using the same commercially available video BLS teaching kit.

Methods
First-year medical students were randomised to either BLS self-learning without supervision or facilitator-led BLS-teaching. Both groups used the MiniAnne kit (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) in the students’ local language. Directly after the teaching and three months later, all participants were tested on their BLS-competencies in a simulated scenario, using the Resusci Anne SkillReporter (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway). The primary outcome was percentage of correct cardiac compressions three months after the teaching. Secondary outcomes were all other BLS parameters recorded by the SkillReporter and parameters from a BLS-competence rating form.

Results
240 students were assessed at baseline and 152 students participated in the 3-month follow-up. For our primary outcome, the percentage of correct compressions, we found a median of 48% (interquartile range (IQR) 10–83) for facilitator-led learning vs. 42% (IQR 14–81) for self-learning (p=0.770) directly after the teaching. In the 3-month follow-up, the rate of correct compressions dropped to 28% (IQR 6–59) for facilitator-led learning (p=0.043) and did not change significantly in the self-learning group (47% (IQR 12–78), p=0.729).

Conclusions
Self-learning is not inferior to facilitator-led learning in the short term. Self-learning resulted in a better retention of BLS-skills three months after training compared to facilitator-led training.

Pedersen, Tina Heidi et al.: Self-learning basic life support: A randomised controlled trial on learning conditions. Resuscitation, Volume 126, 147 - 153. [source]