The use of an electronic cognitive aid compared to traditional poster cognitive aids does not impact cardiopulmonary resuscitation technical nor nontechnical skills of veterinary students in a high-fidelity simulation of canine cardiopulmonary arrest

Objective To evaluate differences in CPR performance and user comfort with the use of traditional cognitive aids (TCAs) versus electronic cognitive aids (ECAs) in a simulation of canine cardiopulmonary arrest in veterinary student who are Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation–certified rescuers (CRs). Methods This prospective study was performed in the university simulation laboratory. Two identical simulations of canine cardiopulmonary arrest were performed using TCAs or an ECA in a crossover design, and video recordings were assessed for technical and nontechnical CPR skills. Participants completed a system usability scale survey. Results 18 CRs performed simulations in groups of 6. There were no significant differences between cognitive aids in critical CPR technical skills, such as chest compression rates per minute (TCA, 110 ± 6; ECA, 108 ± 6), basic life support cycle length (seconds; TCA, 121 [range, 50]; ECA, 120 [range, 92]), time to vasopressor administration (seconds; TCA, 199 [range, 59]; ECA, 185 [range, 95]), or time to electrical defibrillation (seconds; TCA, 434 [range, 55]; ECA, 543 [range, 234]). There were no significant differences in CPR nontechnical skills (trauma nontechnical skills score: TCA, 20 [range, 6]; ECA, 23 [range, 7]) or system usability scale scores (TCA, 86 [± 9]; ECA, 78 [± 12.8]). Conclusions The cognitive aid did not alter technical nor nontechnical skills in CPR in CRs. Certified rescuers did not prefer the use of one cognitive aid over the other based on system usability scores. Clinical Relevance The results of this study suggest that the format of the cognitive aid may not significantly influence CPR performance or user experience in certified rescuers.