{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03683113273106324, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02571230020847811, 'mean_word_length': 4.691699604743083, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Standard basic life support training of the European Resuscitation Council versus blended training: a randomized trial of a new teaching method.

OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the immediate and 9-month results of blended versus standard training in basic life support and the use of an automatic external defibrillator (BLS/AED).


MATERIAL AND METHODS
Randomized trial comparing the results of standard BLS/AED training to blended training. The control group received 4 hours of standard instruction from a trainer and the experimental blended-training group received 2 hours of virtual training and 2 hours of in-person instruction.


RESULTS
Eighty-nine students participated, 45 in the control group and 44 in the experimental group. The controls achieved better mean (SD) knowledge scores immediately after training (8.6 [0.9] vs 8.0 [1.14] in the experimental group, P=.013). The blended training group scored better on certain skill markers (hands-off time in seconds and compressions followed by complete chest recoil). Participant knowledge had decreased at 9 months without significant between-group differences. Overall, retention fell from a score of 8.31 (1.1) to 6.04 (1.6) (P=.001) in 9 months and the loss was similar in the 2 groups. No differences in practical skills between the groups were observed at the end of the course or 9 months later.


CONCLUSION
The blended training method led to better results on some skill items.