Video-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Does the camera perspective matter? A randomized, controlled simulation trial

Abstract

Background Dispatcher assistance can help to save lives during layperson cardiopulmonary resuscitation during cardiac arrest. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different camera positions on the evaluation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance during video-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Methods For this randomized, controlled simulation trial, seven video sequences of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance were recorded from three different camera positions: side, foot and head position. Video sequences showed either correct cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance or one of the six typical errors: low and high compression rate, superficial and increased compression depth, wrong hand position or incomplete release. Video sequences with different cardiopulmonary resuscitation performances and camera positions were randomly combined such that each evaluator was presented seven individual combinations of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and camera position and evaluated each cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance once. A total of 46 paramedics and 47 emergency physicians evaluated seven video sequences of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance from different camera positions. The primary hypothesis was that there are differences in accuracy of correct assessment/error recognition depending on camera perspective. Generalized linear multi-level analyses assuming a binomial distribution and a logit link were employed to account for the dependency between each evaluator's seven ratings. Results Of 651 video sequences, cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance was evaluable in 96.8% and correctly evaluated in 74.5% over all camera positions. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance was classified correctly from a side perspective in 81.3%, from a foot perspective in 68.8% and from a head perspective in 73.6%, revealing a significant difference in error recognition depending on the camera perspective ( p = .01). Correct cardiopulmonary resuscitation was mistakenly evaluated to be false in 46.2% over all perspectives. Conclusions Participants were able to recognize significantly more mistakes when the camera was located on the opposite side of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation provider. Foot position should be avoided in order to enable the dispatcher the best possible view to evaluating cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality.