Should there be a UK based advanced trauma course?

Trauma training in the UK: is ATLS past its ‘sell‐by date’?

“…The answers to the question regarding 'Anaesthetist', 'Surgeon' and 'GP' were broadly as expected, with the majority of the public correctly identifying these specialists as doctors. In line with previous studies [2,3] there was a proportion of the public who did not think anaesthetists were doctors. A majority of respondents (70%) incorrectly assumed that an AP is, or could be, a doctor.…”

“…It has helped doctors of different disciplines and seniority to be able to 'sing off the same hymn sheet' when treating victims of major trauma, in the highly stressful environment of the resuscitation room. With differing models of practice of trauma medicine between the UK and the US, there have been calls for a UK-orientated trauma course [2,3], and the significance, relevance and application of ATLS in its current format in the UK have been questioned [1][2][3][4][5]. In particular, there have been questions about whether the ATLS course is 'fit for purpose' in anaesthesia training, whether it represents good value for money and whether is should be necessary for career progression [5].…”

Teaching the trauma teachers: an international review of the Advanced Trauma Life Support Instructor Course

“…11 One issue has been a perceived lack of emphasis in US teaching on ''communities of practice'' 12 ; that sense of teamwork founded upon critical awareness, Faculty role modelling and engagement with professional peers. This perception has not been borne out by actual observation in this study: all three international centres demonstrated and embraced these principles, albeit to varying degrees in both the taught sessions and in the provision of mentors and role modelling.…”

Evaluating the effectiveness of life-support courses

“…4 Although there is a general impression that adult patient care has improved since the introduction of LSCs 5 and it is widely held that paediatric life-support courses should be able to improve survival, 6 LSCs have been criticized on the grounds of being expensive, bureaucratic, resistant to change, inconveniently located, limited in scope, propagating protocols which are only partly evidence-based and placing the emphasis on the individual rather than the team. 7 The evaluation of life-support courses is of necessity qualitative. It is difficult to conduct a randomized controlled trial of learning after LSCs as many factors which might influence retention are unquantifiable or uncontrollable and there is no single standardized method of measuring performance of practical skills.…”