CPR评分解释了

我们知道良好的CPR提供更高的生存率，关于得分的想法是反映表现的真正有多好for the patient.

Previously, CPR feedback has been given with a strict approved/non-approved result. Over the last 10 years, Laerdal and our partners have created an algorithm providing a more detailed and granular CPR score. Let’s illustrate with an example:

例子：Meet Julie, a top CPR performer who failed the CPR test

Julie is an emergency nurse in a UK hospital. She is physically fit, and able to provide solid depth of more than 50mm in every compression - all fully released and with absolutely no interruptions. She is one of the best CPR performers we’ve ever seen. Still, after the session, the binary CPR feedback said she had failed. Why?

她的压缩率是每分钟一致的122个按压。临床上很棒，但只是在魔法之外的一个微小的态度100-120限制。告诉她她失败了吗？不，如果你的生命在线，你想要朱莉对你进行心肺复苏术。

We saw these results all the time when using the old, binary scoring, and this is one of the reasons we made a new algorithm for scoring CPR.

虽然CPR评分的其他提供者仅使用二进制数，但劳埃尔使用非二进制方法来呈现更加现实和救命的绩效审查。简单的原因是，虽然49毫米和25毫米的压缩深度在指南阈值之外，但毫无疑问，49毫无疑问，到目前为止，更为期望的性能。

• 二进制得分：简单地通过或失败了。在介绍性示例中，学习者1在50-60mm的正确范围内有94％的压缩。其余的按压在指导方面之外。例如，25 mm和49 mm之间没有区别。它们都是“不足”。
• 非二进制数字：The bigger the deviation, the bigger the score reduction. In other words, 49 mm compression depth gives a far better score than 25 mm.

Fig 1. Non-binary scoring.
学习者1and 2 have equal amount of compressions inside and outside of the guideline threshold. But Learner 2 get the higher score since compressions outside the thresholds are closer to the guideline.所有其他CPR技能都使用相同的原则。（图不扩展，仅用于说明目的）

The algorithm which makes up the QCPR score is made by Laerdal Medical in close collaboration with members of the AHA ECC Subcommittees and co-authors of the 2013 AHA Consensus Statement on CPR Quality. Based on input from these specialist members, we created mathematical models for each sub-skill in CPR performance, like compression depth, leaning, ventilation volume, etc.

每个压缩和通风都被单独跟踪和划分，并在整体分数上总结。尽管像平均速率这样的数字可能是有趣的，但平均也不用于计算总分。同样，二进制数不会直接影响分数计算。

减数评分模型
The scoring algorithm use a subtractive scoring model where we start off on a perfect score and, if the learners do something wrong, the score is reduced. If you are within the guidelines you will always get a 100% score. If you deviate, the score is reduced.

沿着S曲线绘制，我们可以看到小偏差在整体分数中减少少，而大型偏差导致CPR分数较大：

图2：X轴上的压缩速率，并在Y轴上得分。
We see that the CPR score deteriorates quickly on both sides of the guideline thresholds. (graph not to scale, for illustrative purposes only)

我们的QCPR Manikins的流行特征是QCPR比赛，最多六位学习者可以参加比赛，看看哪一个表现最佳CPR。

有时我们看到,当一个参与者achieves the best score on binary sub-metrics (like adequate depth percentage), another participant will be crowned the winner of the race. The binary sub-metrics (like percentage of adequate depth) will not always help explain the CPR score.

示例1 - 具有低二进制指标的高分：

Two learner perform 100 compressions. Learner 2 gets a better overall score than learner 1, even though learner 1 had better compression depth if you only look at the binary metrics.

原因是学习者2是closerto the guidelines during the 10 compressions that were not fully "adequate", and learner 1 was very far away from the guidelines during the 8 compressions that were not "adequate".

实施例2 - 通过限制的通风：

In another example, both learners provide too much air in ventilation and miss the ventilation sub-metric.

Let's say learner 2 gave 610 ml of air (which is clinically OK) and learner 1 provided 2000ml of air, which indeed can compromise the clinical outcome. In binary terms, these results are the same, simply "not adequate". However, in clinical terms, and therefore also in scoring terms, they are very different. Learner 2 was much closer to the guidelines and receives a higher score.

有时,特别是for 'Compressions Only' sessions - the total score is unexpectedly low, even though compression rate, depth, and release are all perfect (see image below).

The score reduction for many of those sessions comes from the chest compression fraction. If your compressions are interrupted, there will be a reduction in the score - longer interruptions give larger score reductions.

还值得注意，如果您正在运行“仅限”会话，预期的胸部压缩分数为100％，因为您没有理由阻止压缩。因此，如果存在中断，分数会减少相当严格。

插图，仅限压缩会话：速度，深度和释放都是完美的。但是，总分意外地低。罪魁祸首是胸部压缩分数参数。

The number of parameters scored depends on which manikin or simulator you use, and which software or application you use.

用于计算QCPR评分的10个参数：

• Compression depth
• 压缩率
• Incomplete release
• Hand position
• 每个周期压缩
• Chest compression fraction (also known as flow fraction)
• 通风量
• Ventilation rate
• Number of pre-ventilations
• 在通风前的灵感时间