Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
E-pub ahead of print

The Copenhagen Tool A research tool for evaluation of Basic Life Support educational interventions

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Heterogeneity of treatment effect of prophylactic pantoprazole in adult ICU patients: a post hoc analysis of the SUP-ICU trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Use of the GRADE approach in systematic reviews and guidelines

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearchpeer-review

  3. External validation of the Simplified Mortality Score for the Intensive Care Unit (SMS-ICU)

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Theo Walther Jensen
  • Andrew Lockey
  • Gavin D Perkins
  • Anders Granholm
  • Kristine E Eberhard
  • Asbjørn Hasselager
  • Thea Palsgaard Møller
  • Annette Kjær Ersbøll
  • Fredrik Folke
  • Anne Lippert
  • Doris Østergaard
  • Anthony J Handley
  • Douglas Chamberlain
  • Freddy Lippert
View graph of relations

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decades, major changes have been made in basic life support (BLS) guidelines and manikin technology. The aim of this study was to develop a BLS evaluation tool based on international expert consensus and contemporary validation to enable more valid comparison of research on BLS educational interventions.

METHODS: A modern method for collecting validation evidence based on Messick's framework was used. The framework consists of five domains of evidence: content, response process, internal structure, relations with other variables, and consequences. The research tool was developed by collecting content evidence based on international consensus from an expert panel; a modified Delphi process decided items essential for the tool. Agreement was defined as identical ratings by 70% of the experts.

RESULTS: The expert panel established consensus on a three-levelled score depending on expected response level: laypersons, first responders, and health care personnel. Three Delphi rounds with 13 experts resulted in 16 "essential" items for laypersons, 21 for first responders, and 22 for health care personnel. This, together with a checklist for planning and reporting educational interventional studies within BLS, serves as an example to be used for researchers.

CONCLUSIONS: An expert panel agreed on a three-levelled score to assess BLS skills and the included items. Expert panel consensus concluded that the tool serves its purpose and can act to guide improved research comparison on BLS educational interventions.

Original languageEnglish
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 1 Sep 2020

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.

ID: 60840285