Effect of Real-time Feedback on the Quality of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Medical Students in Colombia
In brief
Real-time feedback raised students' target CPR compressions from 0% to 31%
In a randomized study of 98 Colombian medical students, those who practiced with real-time feedback met chest-compression rate and depth targets more often than students trained without it: median performance was 31% versus 0%. Compression quality also improved in simulated scenarios, but ventilation volumes remained well below target in both groups; whether gains persist or translate to patient care is unknown.
- Journal
- The western journal of emergency medicine (Q1)
- Published
- 31 July 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Jose Luis Piñeros-Alvarez, Nelson Esteban Portuguez-Jaramillo, Astrid Lorena Urbano-Cano
- PMID
- 42900910
- DOI
- 10.5811/westjem.50647
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Emergency Medicine (top studies of the week, 25 October 2026): Real-time feedback improves CPR performance in resuscitation training
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is essential to improve survival in cases of cardiac arrest. However, skill acquisition based solely on instructor observation has proven to be limited. In this context, real-time feedback devices emerge as promising tools to optimize CPR training. OBJECTIVE: In this study our goal was to evaluate the effect of using a real-time feedback device on the quality of CPR performed by medical students at a public university in Colombia. METHODS: This was an experimental study with fourth-year medical students, randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups received the same initial theoretical and practical training in basic CPR. Subsequently, the intervention group practiced with a real-time feedback device, while the control group trained without technological feedback. The primary outcome measure was the target of chest compressions, simultaneously meeting both a rate of 100-120 compressions/minute and a depth of 5-6 cm (maximum value: 100%), as well as ventilations delivered within the 500-600 mL volume range. Secondary outcomes included isolated data on compression depth and rate during two simulated scenarios: hands-only CPR for two minutes and five cycles of 30 chest compressions and two ventilations. RESULTS: Of 106 eligible participants, 98 (92.5%) completed the test (46 intervention / 52 control). Regarding the primary outcome, the intervention group showed significantly higher compliance with the compression target compared to the control group (median values: intervention group 31% vs control group 0%, P < .001). In the hands-only CPR test, the intervention group achieved a higher compression target (72% [40.7-81] vs 3.4% [0-40]; P < .05) and better depth control (5.5 cm [5-5.6] vs 6 cm [5.6-6.1]); P < .05], with no differences in rate (P = .71). In the test with cycles of 30 chest compressions and two ventilations, the intervention group performed better, with a higher compression target (73% [5-83] vs 0.5% [0-19]), P< .05) and better depth control (5.5 cm [5-5.8] vs 6 cm [5.9-6.1], P < .05). No significant differences were observed in ventilation. Both groups had a median target completion of 0% with tidal volumes (intervention group, 265 mL; control group, 291 mL), accounting for failure at well below the recommended 500-600 mL. CONCLUSION: Real-time feedback significantly improved chest compression quality in medical students, although ventilation difficulties persisted. Future research is needed to assess long-term skill retention and clinical application.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.