Optimal management of trauma-related hemorrhagic shock begins at the point of injury and continues throughout all hospital settings. Several procedures developed on the battlefield to treat this condition have been adopted by civilian health care systems and are now used in a number of nonmilitary hospitals. Despite the important role nurses play in caring for patients with trauma-related hemorrhagic shock, much of the literature on this condition is directed toward paramedics and physicians. This article discusses the general principles underlying the pathophysiology and clinical management of trauma-related hemorrhagic shock and updates readers on nursing practices used in its management.
IntroductionExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a classic low-volume high-risk procedure that requires just in time and/or refresher training through animal or simulation modalities. This manuscript evaluated the performance of ECMO personnel trained with both modalities to determine which is better suited for ECMO skills training.MethodsParticipants (physicians, nurses and respiratory/medical technicians) completed a series of ECMO scenarios with synthetic tissue cannulation task trainer as well as a live tissue model. Objective performance quality was based on task completion using a validated ECMO skills assessment tool.ResultsThirty-eight individuals completed this study. Participants completed individual scenario tasks 3 min faster using the simulator (26 min vs 29 min; p=0.03). No differences were seen in percentage of individual tasks completed. In the group scenarios, participants completed a higher percentage of critical tasks using the simulator (97%) versus the animal model (91%; p=0.05), but no differences were seen in task completion times. Additionally, no differences were seen in either lab-based or participants’ prelab cognitive scores.ConclusionsRegardless of their self-assessment or experience, participants’ objective performances were similar among both animal and simulation labs. Task completion times were quicker with simulation model. The distinction between simulation versus animal model may be less important as both demonstrate benefit in development of and/or maintaining skill competency. In the era of questioning the need for and costs of live tissue training, expanding the role of simulation may achieve similar training goals.
BackgroundExtracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) provides a heart-lung bypass for patients with lifethreatening cardiorespiratory failure. It is a classic low-volume, a high-risk procedure that requires specialized training to develop and maintain competence. Therefore, our ability to train efficiently and effectively is essential. The purpose of this study is to determine if specific participant training or experience leads to better performance in emergency ECMO scenarios during high-fidelity simulation training. MethodsFifty-one physicians, nurses, and respiratory/medical technicians participated in a study comparing an animal model vs. simulation-based ECMO education. All completed a multiple-choice questionnaire about prior ECMO experience and other demographics, as well as a four-hour pre-lab didactic session. They completed individual ECMO scenarios with both modalities during two sessions, and task completion times (minutes) and scores (percentage) were measured using a validated ECMO skills assessment tool. The scores of the 19 participants who completed the simulation-based scenarios during their first session were further analyzed in the context of their self-reported ECMO experience, and participants were divided into a novice group and an experienced group. Statistical testing included the Mann-Whitney U test (times) and Fisher's exact test (scores). ResultsData from the 19 participants who completed the simulation-based ECMO training on the first session showed no statistically significant differences in the task completion time or scores among those in the novice group vs. the experienced group in the years of ECMO experience category (28 vs. 34 minutes; p=0.66 and 61% vs. 62%; p=0.54), a number of cannulations category (30 vs. 25 minutes; p=0.11 and 59% vs. 62%; p=0.82) or the number of ECMO patients cared for category (28 vs. 34 minutes; p=0.30 and 57% vs. 62%; p=0.54). Findings were similar for both the lecture-based training and simulation-based training categories, respectively (33 vs. 28 minutes; p=0.71 and 62% vs. 60%; p=0.91 and 34 vs. 28 minutes; p=0.74 and 63% vs. 58%; p=0.12). ConclusionAmong this small subset of participants, we observed no statistically significant differences in performance based on participant experience during simulation-based ECMO scenarios. The didactic/review sessions preceding the training may have contributed to an effective form of training for participants with no prior ECMO experience. Due to the small sample size of this study, further studies are needed to better elucidate what factors lead to better performance in emergency ECMO scenarios.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.