Blix S W, Melau J, Lund-Kordahl I
The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, N-9037, Norway.
Division of Pre-hospital Services, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, 3103, Norway.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017 Aug;61(7):848-853. doi: 10.1111/aas.12910. Epub 2017 May 25.
Penetrating trauma kills rapidly. Thorough and efficient examination and aggressive hemorrhage control is important to save lives. The aim of this study was to assess the skills of civilian Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) in bleeding examination and control compared to Army Medics. Our hypothesis was that civilian pre-hospital systems perform at a lower level compared to an expert group, and did not have sufficient focus on education and training in examination and treatment of penetrating injuries.
We included 60 volunteer Certified EMTs and Army Medics. First, the participants examined a wounded patient. Second, the participants were presented a patient with a penetrating injury on a pork side fixated to the thigh with an artificial arterial bleeding.
The EMTs took significantly shorter time examining, median 1 min 5 s vs. 3 min 58 s (P < 0.001). 5/30 (17%) of EMTs and 28/30 (93%) of army medics did an approved gauze wound packing of the penetrating injury (P < 0.001). EMTs took (median) 18 s and army medics 8 s to hemostasis regardless of approved packing or not (P < 0.001). Time spent on the packing was (median) 1 min 50 s vs. 5 min 47 s respectively (P < 0.001). Increasing time spent on the procedure showed significantly better chance of a successful procedure.
The EMTs had lower accuracy in examination but used significantly shorter time than the Army Medics. The treatment part of the study showed poor EMT performance compared to the Army Medics. This study indicates that more wound packing training needs to be incorporated into initial and ongoing civilian EMT training.
穿透性创伤致死迅速。全面、高效的检查及积极的出血控制对挽救生命至关重要。本研究旨在评估与陆军医护人员相比,民用急救医疗技术员(EMT)在出血检查和控制方面的技能。我们的假设是,与专家组相比,民用院前急救系统的表现水平较低,且在穿透性损伤的检查和治疗方面对教育和培训的关注不足。
我们纳入了60名志愿的认证EMT和陆军医护人员。首先,参与者检查一名受伤患者。其次,向参与者展示一名大腿上固定着一块猪肉模拟穿透伤且伴有人工动脉出血的患者。
EMT检查用时显著更短,中位数为1分5秒,而陆军医护人员为3分58秒(P<0.001)。5/30(17%)的EMT和28/30(93%)的陆军医护人员对穿透伤进行了合格的纱布伤口填塞(P<0.001)。无论伤口填塞是否合格,EMT止血(中位数)用时为18秒,陆军医护人员为8秒(P<0.001)。伤口填塞用时(中位数)分别为1分50秒和5分47秒(P<0.001)。在该操作上花费的时间增加,操作成功的几率显著更高。
EMT在检查方面准确性较低,但用时比陆军医护人员显著更短。研究的治疗部分显示,与陆军医护人员相比,EMT的表现较差。本研究表明,需要将更多伤口填塞培训纳入民用EMT的初始培训和持续培训中。