Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT02664779

Determination and Comparison of Short-term Effectiveness of Three Methods Used for Recognition of Arrhythmias in People With Different Degrees of Medical Training (Advanced Life Support Workshop Participants-ALS): Randomized Controlled Educational Experiment.

Background: Arrhythmia recognition is a fundamental skill for the provider of advanced life support (ALS). Acquire it is difficult, leading to the birth of systematic methods in an attempt to simplify and optimize, however, it has not compared the effectiveness among the three methods with more evidence among professionals with varying degrees of medical training (ALS Workshop participants).

Objective: To determine and compare the effectiveness of the three most widespread and with more evidence systematic methods (10, 6 and 4 steps) for the recognition of arrhythmias in a short-term and its perceived easiness among ALS workshop participants.

Methods / design: Educational Cuasi experimental trial with pre and post intervention measurement, blind, with randomized allocation, in 84 ALS workshop participants. Three systematic methods to recognize arrhythmias will be taught and their effectiveness to diagnose in a short-term and its perceived easiness will be measured and compared.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Cruz Roja Colombiana

Cali, Valle del Cauca Department, Colombia

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • • Health professionals
  • Attend a course in Advanced Life Support in Cali (Colombia), during the study period.
  • Voluntarily accept to participate in the study

Exclusion criteria

  • No

Treatment and study plan

Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method

Other

Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method

Other

Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method

Other

Primary outcomes

  1. percentage of subjects who achieve scores greater than or equal to 30

    Time frame: 15 minutes after delivered the intervention

    For comparison of the percentage of subjects who achieve scores greater than or equal to 30 (approving minimum score) in the practical test of arrhythmia's diagnosis, the test will be the Chi-square (X2), which allows to compare proportions in more than two groups; or Fisher's exact test, submitted that one of the expected values is less than 5.

Secondary outcomes

  1. change in the average scores in the groups

    Time frame: 15 minutes after delivered the intervention

    In order to compare the magnitude of the change in the average scores in the groups trained with each of the 3 methods, both in the the theoretical and practical test of diagnosis of arrhythmias; ANOVA or Mann-Whitney's U, according to the distribution of variables was performed. These comparisons are made to the post intervention measurements and Bonferroni correction for alpha according to the number of comparisons will perform. The analysis of the collected data will be using STATA 10.0 software.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Other

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2016
Primary completion
2017
Study completion
2017
First posted
Jan 27, 2016
Registry last updated
Jun 1, 2021

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.