Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Prescription Program: A Pilot Randomized Comparator Trial

• Published in: The Journal of emergency medicine Vol. 43; no. 1; pp. 166 - 171
• Main Authors: Greenberg, Marna Rayl, DO, MPH, Barr, Gavin C., MD, Rupp, Valerie A., RN, BSN, Patel, Nainesh, MD, Weaver, Kevin R., DO, Hamilton, Kimberly, BA, Reed, James F., PHD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.07.2012
• Subjects: Aged; Cardiology; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - education; Computer-Assisted Instruction; education; Emergency; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Motivation; Patient Education as Topic - methods; Pilot Projects; Prescriptions; Primary Health Care; public health; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; public health; education
• ISSN: 0736-4679; 2352-5029
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.05.078

Abstract Background The American Heart Association wants to increase the number of citizens who know how to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is unknown whether giving patients a prescription (Rx) to learn CPR is effective. We sought to determine if patients with, or at risk for, heart disease and their families were more likely to follow prescriptive advice to buy a CPR Anytime ™ kit (American Heart Association, Dallas, TX) or to take a CPR class. Methods This was a prospective randomized pilot study of a convenience sample of 162 patients who presented to one of three recruiting sites: a suburban community emergency department (ED), an office-based primary care (IM), or cardiology (CD) setting. After consent was obtained, CPR-naïve participants aged > 44 years were randomized to one of two study arms. One group received a Rx for a CPR Anytime ™ self-learning kit, consisting of a CPR mannequin and a 22-minute DVD. The comparator group was prescribed a CPR class. Results At the IM office, 7/29 (24%), at the CD office 3/25 (12%), and at the ED 2/23 (9%) patients purchased the CPR kit. Across both investigational arms, 4 were lost to follow-up, yielding approximately 15% (12/77) who followed Rx advice to purchase the CPR kit and 0% (0/79) who took a CPR class. Cumulatively, a participant was significantly more likely to purchase a kit than to take a class ( p = 0.0004). Conclusion Patients can be motivated to purchase CPR Anytime ™ kits but not to take a CPR class from prescribed advice.