Häske David, Gross Zeno, Atzbach Ulrich, Bernhard Michael, Gather Andreas, Hoedtke Jochen, Hossfeld Björn, Schele Stephan, Münzberg Matthias
Center of Public Health and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Emergency Medical Service, German Red Cross, Reutlingen, Germany.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 Jun;48(3):2207-2217. doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01768-z. Epub 2021 Aug 23.
Training programs help establish evidence-based knowledge in prehospital emergency care. This study aimed to compare manual statements from prehospital trauma training programs and evidence-based guidelines on treatment of patients with severe and multiple injuries.
A systematic comparison with the primary endpoint of the highest grades of recommendation (GoR A, "must") of the current version of the German guidelines and recent recommendations of the prehospital trauma training programs International Trauma Life Support (ITLS), Prehospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS), and Traumamanagement (TM) based on their official textbooks was done. The recommendations were categorized as agreement or minor or major variation. The comparison was made using a rating system by experts who were blinded to the training programs. If the consensus strength of the experts was < 75%, affected statements were finalized in a Delphi procedure.
Overall, 92 statements were compared. Fleiss-kappa of the first rating was 0.385 (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.376-0.393). Finally, comparable recommendations of the guideline with the training programs in principle agree with the statement of the guidelines were > 90% for all programs. The agreement with GoR A recommendations and each course program were 33.9%, 30.6%, and 35.5% (ITLS, PHTLS, and TM, respectively), p = 0.715.
Despite small differences, the training programs showed high degrees of compliance with the guidelines and international agreement with some minor differences. Furthermore, the results did not allow any conclusions regarding the quality of the courses, the didactic methodology, and local adaptability. The practical implementation of the courses is probably even higher and closer to the guidelines.
培训项目有助于在院前急救护理中建立循证知识。本研究旨在比较院前创伤培训项目的手册声明与关于严重多发伤患者治疗的循证指南。
基于当前版本的德国指南的最高推荐等级(推荐等级A,“必须”)这一主要终点,与院前创伤培训项目国际创伤生命支持(ITLS)、院前创伤生命支持(PHTLS)和创伤管理(TM)的最新推荐进行系统比较,这些推荐基于它们的官方教材。将这些推荐分为一致、轻微差异或重大差异。由对培训项目不知情的专家使用评分系统进行比较。如果专家的共识强度<75%,则通过德尔菲法确定受影响的声明。
总体上,比较了92条声明。首次评分的Fleiss-kappa为0.385(p<0.001,95%CI:0.376 - 0.393)。最后,指南与培训项目的可比推荐原则上与指南声明的一致性在所有项目中均>90%。与推荐等级A的推荐以及每个课程项目的一致性分别为33.9%、30.6%和35.5%(分别为ITLS、PHTLS和TM),p = 0.715。
尽管存在细微差异,但培训项目显示出与指南的高度一致性以及存在一些细微差异的国际共识。此外,结果无法就课程质量、教学方法和本地适应性得出任何结论。课程的实际实施可能更高且更接近指南。