Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) compared to traditional instruction or other forms of learning on resuscitation training outcomes and on clinical and/or patient-related outcomes.
Methods: As part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation it was conducted this review and searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane from inception to Feb 12th, 2024. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions assessment tool and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.
Results: 4420 abstracts were retrieved by the initial search and 10 additional studies were identified through other resources. Sixty-five studies were selected for eligibility and nine simulated studies met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis was performed on three outcomes: time to chest compressions, time to defibrillation and time to first epinephrine given, which showed that RCDP had significantly shorter time to defibrillation and time to administration of epinephrine than controls. The overall certainty of evidence was very low across all outcomes due to risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision.
Conclusion: It may be reasonable to include RCDP as an instructional design feature of basic and advanced life support training. However, substantial variations of delivering RCDP exist and there is no uniform use of RCDP. Further research is necessary on medium/long-term effects of RCDP training, and on the effects on different target groups of training.
Keywords: Advance cardiac life support; Basic life support; Debriefing; Learning; Medical education; Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice; Resuscitation; Simulation.
© 2024 The Author(s).