Basic Life Saving SkillsNCT02381093
Does Contextual Interference Improve Retention of Basic Life Support Skills? A Randomized Controlled Trial
A study testing Modified BLS course and Standard BLS Course in people with Basic Life Saving Skills and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, run by Ottawa Hospital Research Institute at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The current method of teaching Basic Life Support (BLS) courses involves a practice schedule where learners rotate through each station once, without repetition. Laypeople learning within this blocked schedule may experience poor skill retention, resulting in suboptimal delivery of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Basic Life Saving Skills, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Skill Retention
- What is being tested?
- Modified BLS course and Standard BLS Course
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 74 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Jul 2015to Aug 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age > 18
Who cannot join
- Health issues preventing them from performing BLS skills
- Previous BLS training
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The current method of teaching Basic Life Support (BLS) courses involves a practice schedule where learners rotate through each station once, without repetition. Laypeople learning within this blocked schedule may experience poor skill retention, resulting in suboptimal delivery of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). Implementing a Contextual Interference (CI) practice scheduling method to BLS training would involve presenting each station multiple times within the same timeframe. CI is known to lead to better retention in other domains, such as sport and engineering. Our project will test the effect of CI on the long-term retention of BLS skills. We hypothesize that participants trained in BLS using CI techniques will have superior skill retention at 3 months compared to those trained with the conventional BLS course.
Read the detailed description
Current BLS courses deliver a curriculum in which learners go through several basic stations in a sequence organized by the American Heart Association (AHA). Learners spend a fixed amount of time at each station, once, thus switching task as many times as the number of stations. This blocked practice design is easy to implement and manage and could also be a contributing factor to the poor retention of BLS skills in laypeople (11). In the next three paragraphs, we highlight why contextual interference is beneficial for skill retention, how contextual interference can be beneficial for medical skills training and why the benefits of contextual interference are particularly relevant for BLS training.
Contextual interference (CI) is a practice scheduling method that involves presenting skills (or stations) in a sequential or random order. Each skill or station is presented multiple times during a learning session (i.e., performing for a shorter duration at each station, but returning multiple times). Both random and sequential order schedules can yield comparable learning benefits (19). With a CI practice schedule, skills are partially forgotten while learners are practicing other skills. As a result, the learner must actively recall each skill multiple times. These repeated memory retrieval processes facilitate better retention after CI practice, compared to a blocked practice schedule (19). A simple analogy can be made with learning multiplication tables: once one has tried 7 times 9, the exercise is not as beneficial for learning if one tried 7 times 9 again on the next trial. Having to retrieve information multiple times with other skills (or time) between trials maximizes long-term skill retention (19). CI is also beneficial when practiced skills are distinct from each other (12). Because many skills are being processed at the same time, the learner must create distinctive memories for each skill. Altogether, the repeated recalls and contrasts involved in CI may have a negative effect on immediate performance (i.e. immediate testing), but typically have a positive effect on long-term learning (i.e. retention) (13). More relevant to this project, the positive effects of CI extend from the motor to the verbal-cognitive domain and have been replicated with various skills levels and learner age groups (14).
Contextual interference has been shown to improve long-term learning among engineers in training of troubleshooting skills (15). Although well studied in sport and other areas outside healthcare, CI has been less well studied in medical education with only a few studies on surgical procedural tasks. Not all implementations of contextual interference have yielded better skill retention and transfer compared to blocked practice (16, 17). In this project, contextual interference will be carefully tested for BLS training by optimizing subtask transitions. In surgical procedures, for instance, CI studies have involved breaking a complex sequential task or procedure into subtasks and implementing CI practice with arbitrarily organized subtasks. An issue with that approach is that learners miss the opportunity to practice the transition from one subtask to another, which can hinder learning. Conversely, BLS skills stations are distinct from each other, technically simple, and do not require complex transitions between skills.
The last but not least relevant factor is that BLS requires transferring the skill into an unpracticed context (13). While orthopedic surgery is learned and performed in fairly comparable and repeatable conditions, BLS is learned in a classroom but needs to be transferred wherever a cardiac arrest takes place. Because contextual interference not only favours better retention but also better transfer to new situations (20), it is imperative to test if such a practice can lead to better BLS skill retention and transferability than conventional blocked practice schedules.
The proposed study will compare skill retention among a group of laypeople being taught BLS using the current standard teaching program compared to those exposed to a CI based program. We hypothesize that participants trained in BLS using a contextual interference practice schedule will have superior skill retention at a retention post-test, 3 months after training, compared to the standard blocked practice schedule employed in current BLS training sessions. This study will be a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ethical approval will be obtained from the Ottawa Health Science Research Ethics Board prior to recruitment. Written informed consent and a confidentiality agreement will be obtained from all participants.
- Being tested
- Modified BLS course, Standard BLS Course
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Modified BLS courseOther
BLS using CI
Standard BLS CourseOther
Usual BLS teaching
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Standard BLS Course | Active comparator | Participants will partake in a standard BLS course. Receives: Other: Standard BLS Course |
| Contextual Interference | Experimental | Participants will partake in a BLS course designed using contextual interference scheduling. Receives: Other: Modified BLS course |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Full BLS performance on the retention post-test
Participants will repeat a BLS test at 3 months.
Measured: 3 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Time to start chest compressions, defibrillation using AED
Measured: 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Mar 2015 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2015
- Primary completionApr 2017
- Study completionAug 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Basic Life Saving SkillsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 74 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02381093
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- OttawaHRI
- Status last verified
- Dec 2017
- First submitted
- 2 Mar 2015
- Last updated
- 19 Dec 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Dec 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Does Contextual Interference Improve Retention of Basic Life Support Skills? A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02381093
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- OttawaHRI
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 74 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jul 2015
- Primary completion
- Apr 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Mar 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The current method of teaching Basic Life Support (BLS) courses involves a practice schedule where learners rotate through each station once, without repetition. Laypeople learning within this blocked schedule may experience poor skill retention, resulting in suboptimal delivery of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). Implementing a Contextual Interference (CI) practice scheduling method to BLS training would involve presenting each station multiple times within the same timeframe. CI is known to lead to better retention in other domains, such as sport and engineering. Our project will test the effect of CI on the long-term retention of BLS skills. We hypothesize that participants trained in BLS using CI techniques will have superior skill retention at 3 months compared to those trained with the conventional BLS course.
Detailed description
Current BLS courses deliver a curriculum in which learners go through several basic stations in a sequence organized by the American Heart Association (AHA). Learners spend a fixed amount of time at each station, once, thus switching task as many times as the number of stations. This blocked practice design is easy to implement and manage and could also be a contributing factor to the poor retention of BLS skills in laypeople (11). In the next three paragraphs, we highlight why contextual interference is beneficial for skill retention, how contextual interference can be beneficial for medical skills training and why the benefits of contextual interference are particularly relevant for BLS training.
Contextual interference (CI) is a practice scheduling method that involves presenting skills (or stations) in a sequential or random order. Each skill or station is presented multiple times during a learning session (i.e., performing for a shorter duration at each station, but returning multiple times). Both random and sequential order schedules can yield comparable learning benefits (19). With a CI practice schedule, skills are partially forgotten while learners are practicing other skills. As a result, the learner must actively recall each skill multiple times. These repeated memory retrieval processes facilitate better retention after CI practice, compared to a blocked practice schedule (19). A simple analogy can be made with learning multiplication tables: once one has tried 7 times 9, the exercise is not as beneficial for learning if one tried 7 times 9 again on the next trial. Having to retrieve information multiple times with other skills (or time) between trials maximizes long-term skill retention (19). CI is also beneficial when practiced skills are distinct from each other (12). Because many skills are being processed at the same time, the learner must create distinctive memories for each skill. Altogether, the repeated recalls and contrasts involved in CI may have a negative effect on immediate performance (i.e. immediate testing), but typically have a positive effect on long-term learning (i.e. retention) (13). More relevant to this project, the positive effects of CI extend from the motor to the verbal-cognitive domain and have been replicated with various skills levels and learner age groups (14).
Contextual interference has been shown to improve long-term learning among engineers in training of troubleshooting skills (15). Although well studied in sport and other areas outside healthcare, CI has been less well studied in medical education with only a few studies on surgical procedural tasks. Not all implementations of contextual interference have yielded better skill retention and transfer compared to blocked practice (16, 17). In this project, contextual interference will be carefully tested for BLS training by optimizing subtask transitions. In surgical procedures, for instance, CI studies have involved breaking a complex sequential task or procedure into subtasks and implementing CI practice with arbitrarily organized subtasks. An issue with that approach is that learners miss the opportunity to practice the transition from one subtask to another, which can hinder learning. Conversely, BLS skills stations are distinct from each other, technically simple, and do not require complex transitions between skills.
The last but not least relevant factor is that BLS requires transferring the skill into an unpracticed context (13). While orthopedic surgery is learned and performed in fairly comparable and repeatable conditions, BLS is learned in a classroom but needs to be transferred wherever a cardiac arrest takes place. Because contextual interference not only favours better retention but also better transfer to new situations (20), it is imperative to test if such a practice can lead to better BLS skill retention and transferability than conventional blocked practice schedules.
The proposed study will compare skill retention among a group of laypeople being taught BLS using the current standard teaching program compared to those exposed to a CI based program. We hypothesize that participants trained in BLS using a contextual interference practice schedule will have superior skill retention at a retention post-test, 3 months after training, compared to the standard blocked practice schedule employed in current BLS training sessions. This study will be a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ethical approval will be obtained from the Ottawa Health Science Research Ethics Board prior to recruitment. Written informed consent and a confidentiality agreement will be obtained from all participants.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Standard BLS Course | Active comparator | Other: Standard BLS CourseParticipants will partake in a standard BLS course. |
| Contextual Interference | Experimental | Other: Modified BLS courseParticipants will partake in a BLS course designed using contextual interference scheduling. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Age > 18
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Health issues preventing them from performing BLS skills
- Previous BLS training
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Modified BLS courseBLS using CI | Other | Contextual Interference |
| Standard BLS CourseUsual BLS teaching | Other | Standard BLS Course |
Primary outcome
Full BLS performance on the retention post-test
Time frame: 3 months
Participants will repeat a BLS test at 3 months.
1 secondary outcome
Time to start chest compressions, defibrillation using AED
Time frame: 3 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Dec 2017.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Modified BLS course and Standard BLS Course in people with Basic Life Saving Skills and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, run by Ottawa Hospital Research Institute at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Dec 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Full BLS performance on the retention post-test (time frame: 3 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Dec 2017.