Evidence review of CPR as per ARC guidelines
This part of the assessment requires the student to review a video of a skill associated with the course and assess the performance of the skill by comparing the performance to the current best practice evidence, analyse the video for quality of performance and identify the areas of performance that are in keeping with the evidence as well as those that are different to the evidence.
This will be submitted via turnitin by 5pm on the following dates: Cohort A 20/3/2021
Instructions for the Assignment
The review of evidence requires you to review the video of a cardiac arrest scenario from several years ago. The guidelines for management of cardiac arrest have changed in the intervening period.
The BLS/ ALS video on the canvas website must be used.
You need to analyse the video and identify practices that are in line and not in line with the ARC guidelines. Where practice is not in line with the guideline you should identify what the participants should be doing differently. You also need to consider best practice evidence for nontechnical skills in emergency situations and using that evidence critique the performance in the video against that evidence again noting what the participants should be doing if demonstrating evidenced based practice.
For all the discussion you need to link to the ARC guidelines specifically and identify the research to provide evidence to support your comments.
You are expected to search for evidence in journals available via the RMIT library.
There are many journals with research into BLS and ALS so try and use these rather than a website (although the ARC website does provide reliable information as well. Examples of journals available via the library include: Resuscitation, Chest, Heart and Lung).
Do not use sites like Wikipaedia or WebMD as a source. – any such sources will not be deemed an appropriate reference
Word limit – 1500 words. You can exceed the word count by 10% without penalty. More than 10% over word count will not be marked.
Ensure you reference your discussion. Please not that references must be from the last 10 years with preference given to sources from the last 5 years. Please review the lecture 1 section on assessment. You must nominate which ARC guideline you are alluding to when critiquing performance and then support this discussion with detail from other research sources.
Once completed submit via turnitin
An example
Evidence Review
It was noted the depth of compression appeared inadequate on multiple occasions. According to ARC guideline 5 (2019) depth of compression of at least 5cm is necessary to generate a cardiac output. Several studies have identified the importance of compression depth during cardiac arrest (Frank, 2015; Smyth, 2015; Simmonds, 2017; Alfonso & Sidonas, 2018). Franks (2019) study of survival from cardiac arrest found a statistically significant relationship between return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and compression depth. Those patients who had compressions of 6 cm had a greater likelihood of ROSC compared to those with a compression depth less than 5cm (p=0.01). …………………………….”
This is just an example.
https://youtu.be/ElLTHbslJZc
