[Evaluation of emergency medicine knowledge and procedures after finishing the course "resuscitation specialty"].

Emergency medical services are an indispensable part of out-patient medical care. For this purpose, special qualifications are necessary and these are taught within the framework of a course entitled "Certificate for Emergency Medical Services". These courses are organized either as a block course, that is a one-week course, or as weekend courses in progression. These two types of courses are compared here. Three block courses with 546 participants and five weekend courses with 599 participants were examined. The practical examination took the form of four practice stages, with 95 people from the courses taking the examination. The examination focussed on certain areas such as ECG diagnostics in the case of cardiac arrest, early defibrillation, removing helmets, immobilizing a fractured tibia, respiration with emergency equipment, vein punctures and volume substitution. Of the doctors attending the courses, 59.7% were residents, 35.7% were senior house officers and 4.6% were specialists or general practitioners. Thirty-nine (or 41.1%) of those examined attended a block course and 56 (58.9%) weekend courses. In diagnosing cardiac arrest, those attending a block course were more reliable (92.3% diagnosed correctly, compared with 67.9% in the other group). Fifteen per cent from both groups were not able to correctly diagnose ventricular fibrillation from the ECG. Of the block course participants, 39.1% chose defibrillation with the correct energy, compared with 24.2% of those attending weekend courses. One out of two participants recognized a deliberate fault in the ECG equipment. Thirty-seven per cent of participants of the block course and 35.9% from the weekend courses failed to choose the right size splint for neck immobilization. Regarding respiration, 67.2% of participants of the block course group and 71.4% of the weekend course group carried out manual artificial respiration. When using respirator equipment, 90% from the block course and 72.2% of the other group noticed an increase in respiratory tract pressure. When giving artificial respiration to an infant, 51.9% of the weekend course group and 35.9% of the block course group used an unsuitable emergency respirator. When choosing a central puncture point most participants picked the external jugular vein and gave their own previous experience as the reason (block course 48.2%, others 52.1%). Accuracy regarding the volume requirements in the case of large-scale burns, as well as choosing the quantity (16.7% compared with 7.4%) and the correct solution (47.9% compared with 40.7%) was unsatisfactory. For these reasons, we strongly recommend intensifying training in block courses for the future qualification of doctors in emergency services. It would also be useful to conduct an oral exam at the end of the entire course, which could also entitle candidates to use this professional designation as one of their qualifications.