State Key Laboratory of Trauma, Burn and Combined Injury, Department for Combat Casualty Care Training, Training Base for Army Health Care, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400038, China.
Mil Med. 2022 May 3;187(5-6):757-763. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usab286.
Training combat personnel in combat first-aid skills has faced many challenges over time, such as the need to combine tactics with medicine and to overcome combat personnel's lack of medical background knowledge. Therefore, many simulation methods are currently being developed, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages. In this study, a combined simulation method involving live-actor patients using a wearable training apparatus was developed, and the effects of this method were observed.
Focusing on the major causes of preventable deaths among victims killed in action, wearable training apparatuses simulating massive hemorrhage, airway obstruction, and tension pneumothorax were designed and produced. Methods of simulating these three injury types using live-actor patients with these training apparatuses were developed, and medical teachers evaluated the simulation effects. The live-actor patients were incorporated into a tactical scenario to train and test nonmedical and medical students in year 3, respectively. High-fidelity simulator-based training and traditional training without simulation served as the control. A post-training survey using a 7-point Likert scale evaluated the trainees' feelings toward these training approaches.
Three types of training apparatuses were developed to simulate three life-threatening injuries, and the simulation effects of the live-actor patients using these apparatuses were highly recognized by medical teachers. Both live-actor patients and high-fidelity simulator-based training improved performance significantly more than traditional training. However, the improvement due to training with live-actor patients was greater than that due to high-fidelity simulator-based training for nonmedical students, whereas there was no difference between these two simulation methods for medical students. A post-training survey revealed that all the trainees were confident in practicing first-aid skills after training, and they all agreed that live-actor patients could combine tactical situations with first aid better than high-fidelity simulators. The nonmedical students strongly agreed that live-actor patients were more helpful in the training of injury evaluation than high-fidelity simulators.
The method using wearable training apparatus-based live-actor patients was satisfying and effective for teaching life-saving combat first-aid skills, especially for nonmedical students.
随着时间的推移，对作战人员进行作战急救技能培训面临许多挑战，例如需要将战术与医学相结合，以及克服作战人员缺乏医学背景知识的问题。因此，目前正在开发许多模拟方法，每种方法都有其优点和缺点。在这项研究中，开发了一种涉及使用可穿戴训练设备的活体患者的组合模拟方法，并观察了这种方法的效果。
针对行动中死亡人员的可预防死因，设计并制作了模拟大出血、气道阻塞和张力性气胸的可穿戴训练设备。开发了使用这些训练设备的活体患者模拟这三种损伤类型的方法，并由医学教师评估模拟效果。将活体患者纳入战术场景，分别对三年级非医学和医学学生进行培训和测试。高保真模拟训练和无模拟的传统训练作为对照。使用 7 点李克特量表对受训者对这些培训方法的感受进行了培训后调查。
开发了三种训练设备来模拟三种危及生命的损伤，并且医学教师高度认可使用这些设备的活体患者的模拟效果。活体患者和基于高保真模拟器的训练都比传统训练显著提高了表现。然而，对于非医学学生，通过使用活体患者进行培训的改善程度大于通过基于高保真模拟器的培训，而对于医学学生，这两种模拟方法之间没有差异。培训后调查显示，所有受训者都对培训后的急救技能练习充满信心，他们都同意活体患者比高保真模拟器更能将战术情况与急救结合起来。非医学学生强烈认为，活体患者在损伤评估的培训中比高保真模拟器更有帮助。
使用基于可穿戴训练设备的活体患者的方法在教授救命的作战急救技能方面是令人满意且有效的，特别是对于非医学学生。
