Blended vs Conventional Training for ACLS

Blended Learning Approach Versus Conventional Training in Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The investigators conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with an embedded cost-effectiveness analysis at a tertiary hospital in China. Participants were randomized to either traditional instructor-led ACLS training (ILT ACLS) or blended-learning HeartCode ACLS training (HC ACLS). The primary outcome was the overall first-attempt ACLS certification pass rate. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the institutional perspective using certification pass rate as the effectiveness measure. Costs estimation included program delivery costs and productivity losses associated with participant training time.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Second-year resident physicians and nurses
• Working in the emergency, critical care, or anesthesiology departments
• Valid Basic Life Support (BLS) certification
• No prior Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS) training
• Physical ability to perform chest compressions, bag-mask ventilation, and defibrillation
• Willing and able to provide written informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

• Individuals without a valid BLS certification