Background: High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is vital to improving survival from cardiac arrest. This study compared participant performance of CPR with three American Heart Association (AHA)-approved CPR recertification programs because current literature does not show which method is superior. Our goal is to investigate the best training methods to deliver high-quality CPR.
Method: Participants were within 90 days of recertification in face-to-face, Heart Code, or Resuscitation Quality Improvement (RQI).
Results: No statistically significant differences were found among training modalities or demographic characteristics. The only significant difference was among those who had performed CPR on a human.
Conclusion: Mean scores for the three modalities did not reach the passing requirement for AHA, suggesting that one method of CPR training is not better than the others. Recommendations for translating these findings into clinical practice include mock codes with the ability to measure CPR metrics and simulations of cardiac responses to provide vicarious CPR experience. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2022;53(1):43-48.].