Cloonan Clifford C
Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA.
J Trauma. 2003 May;54(5 Suppl):S20-5. doi: 10.1097/01.TA.0000052120.52837.84.
Good Level I scientific evidence supporting the efficacy (decreased morbidity and mortality) of prehospital fluid administration by civilian Emergency Medical Services personnel is lacking. The efficacy of this procedure in the hands of army Combat Lifesavers is even less well substantiated. The purpose of this article is to look critically at the skill of intravenous fluid administration that is taught to army Combat Lifesavers and to consider whether or not the application of that skill is actually beneficial to the majority of patients who are recipients of this procedure. A method is described to assist medical educators in making decisions as to which skills should be taught to health care providers, and this method is loosely applied in the following discussion about whether Combat Lifesavers should receive training to start and administer intravenous fluids. Good scientific studies, based on valid data, need to be performed to determine the efficacy of intravenous fluid administration and other combat medical skills.
缺乏有力的一级科学证据支持民用紧急医疗服务人员在院前进行液体输注的有效性(降低发病率和死亡率)。而军队战斗救生员掌握这一操作的有效性更是缺乏充分的证据。本文的目的是批判性地审视教授给军队战斗救生员的静脉输液技能,并思考该技能的应用是否真的对接受这一操作的大多数患者有益。本文描述了一种方法,以协助医学教育工作者决定应向医疗服务提供者教授哪些技能,并且在接下来关于战斗救生员是否应接受启动和管理静脉输液培训的讨论中大致运用了该方法。需要基于有效数据开展良好的科学研究,以确定静脉输液及其他战斗医疗技能的有效性。