Design and Evaluation of CPR Emergency Equipment for Non-Professionals

Abstract

Sudden cardiac death is a sudden and highly fatal condition. Implementing high-quality emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) early on is an effective rescue method for this disease. However, the rescue steps of CPR are complicated and difficult to remember, and the quantitative indicators are difficult to control, which leads to a poor quality of CPR emergency actions outside the hospital setting. Therefore, we have developed CPR emergency equipment with a multisensory feedback function, aiming to guide rescuers in performing CPR through visual, auditory, and tactile interaction. This equipment consists of three components: first aid clothing, an audio-visual integrated terminal, and a vital sign detector. These three components are based on a micro-power WiFi-Mesh network, enabling the long-term wireless transmission of the multisensor data. To evaluate the impact of the multisensory feedback CPR emergency equipment on nonprofessionals, we conducted a controlled experiment involving 32 nonmedical subjects. Each subject was assigned to either the experimental group, which used the equipment, or the control group, which did not. The main evaluation criteria were the chest compression (CC) depth, the CC rate, the precise depth of the CC ratio (5–6 cm), and the precise rate of the CC ratio -(100–120 times/min). The results indicated that the average CC depth in the experimental group was 51.5 ± 1.3 mm, which was significantly better than that of the control group (50.2 ± 2.2 mm, p = 0.012). Moreover, the average CC rate in the experimental group (110.1 ± 6.2 times/min) was significantly higher than that of the control group (100.4 ± 6.6 times/min) (p < 0.001). Compared to the control group (66.37%), the experimental group showed a higher proportion of precise CC depth (82.11%), which is closer to the standard CPR rate of 100%. In addition, the CC ratio of the precise rate was 93.75% in the experimental group, which was significantly better than that of 56.52% in the control group (p = 0.024). Following the experiment, the revised System Availability Scale (SUS) was utilized to evaluate the equipment’s usability. The average total SUS score was 78.594, indicating that the equipment’s acceptability range was evaluated as ‘acceptable’, and the overall adjective rating was ‘good’. In conclusion, the multisensory feedback CPR emergency equipment significantly enhances the CC performance (CC depth, CC rate, the precise depth of CC ratio, the precise rate of CC ratio) of nonprofessionals during CPR, and the majority of participants perceive the equipment as being easy to use.