Feedback makes industry work well. Why not for EMS?

Let's take a look at two scenarios where two individuals are performing chest compression on two SCA victims.

Both rescuers were recently trained and received their CPR cards.

Rescuer #1 got a call this morning and on arrival began chest compression while waiting for her partner to set up the AED.

Rescuer #2 got a call this morning and on arrival began chest compression while waiting for his partner to set up the AED. Rescuer #2's situation was different in that he had another instrument that watched what he was doing. The device played a sound at a rate of 105 per minute. The device warned him loudly when he left more than 1.8 pounds on the victim's sternum at the top of the "full recoil" upstroke. The device advised him for each compression when the depth was OK.

Which of the two rescuer's had a better chance of performing guideline-compliant chest compressions?

SLICC's measurement of a large number of bystanders and EMS personnel showed that this sort of feedback was necessary and that providing guidance was not effective in curing the problem over a period of two months or more.

Feedback - the process of influencing a process by reporting on quality on a current basis - is what industry relies on to control the quality of what they produce.

A applaud the AHA's recent requirement that such feedback devices must be used in CPR courses beginning in January. I wish it were able to extend that ruling to all EMS personnel.

Bob