A comparative study of the 1992 and 1997 recovery positions for use in the UK.

Abstract

In April 1997 the ILCOR Basic Life Support advisory statements were announced in conjunction with changes to the recovery position for use in the UK. This study compared the new and old positions by using a questionnaire to assess how well each position satisfied the ILCOR statements. The study was carried out over six different hospital trusts by eight resuscitation training officers. Each tutor alternately taught the 1992 or 1997 recommended positions. After the practical session each student completed a questionnaire on ease of learning and use of the position, as well as other factors such as spinal stability. They were also asked to score the position when they were placed in recovery by other students. Their competency was assessed using the ALS criteria. Over the duration of the study 687 forms were suitable for analysis. For every question there was a significant trend in favour of the 92 position, with students finding the technique easier to learn and use, simpler for positioning for CPR and with less spinal movement during rolling. Possible sources of bias such as previous training, tutor or staff grade made no statistical difference to the results. When performed competently the 1997 position appears to cause less brachial compression, but other problems with learning or use of the 97 position outweigh this advantage. The 1992 position currently provides the best compromise between ease of use, spinal stability and other factors, and better satisfies the ILCOR advisory statements.