大规模伤亡事件:战术标签手环能提高急救人员的分类能力吗?法国宪兵精锐部队随机控制大规模伤亡事件模拟与响应。

Military surgeon Pub Date : 2023-07-22 Epub Date: 2022-02-17 DOI:10.1093/milmed/usac023
Julien Galant, Simon-Pierre Corcostegui, David Marrache, Luc Saint-Jean, Vincent Desrobert, Cédric Boutillier du Retail, François Lecomte
{"title":"大规模伤亡事件:战术标签手环能提高急救人员的分类能力吗?法国宪兵精锐部队随机控制大规模伤亡事件模拟与响应。","authors":"Julien Galant, Simon-Pierre Corcostegui, David Marrache, Luc Saint-Jean, Vincent Desrobert, Cédric Boutillier du Retail, François Lecomte","doi":"10.1093/milmed/usac023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Tactical triage replaces primary triage in the exclusion zone in mass murder or terrorist events to prioritize victims requiring life-saving interventions (LSIs) and/or rapid extraction in an environment with a lack of resources and under active threat. French gendarmerie tactical unit medical teams use triage bracelets during mass casualty incidents (MCIs). This study assessed the value of these bracelets in the tactical triage performance of nonhealthcare combat rescue operators in an MCI simulation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare triage performance with and without the use of bracelets based on categorization accuracy, LSIs, and time to end triage.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Two groups of operators were randomly assigned to participate in an MCI simulation alone (10 simulated patients) with (intervention group) or without (control) bracelets. The primary outcome was triage performance assessed by the mass casualty triage performance assessment tools. The results were measured based on the LSI required, triage category, and time of completion of the task. Secondary outcomes were operator-perceived stress and self-efficacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven operators (intervention group n = 5, control group n = 6) participated. Triage performance, based on a maximum score of 90, was better for the intervention group [72.200 (SD = 10.330) vs. 57.000 (SD = 12.961), P = .045]. Self-efficacy was increased after the simulation in the intervention group [45.00 47.2 (SD = 4.147) vs. 50.400 (SD = 5.505), P = .034)].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study to show the best triage performance among nonhealthcare combat rescuers using triage bracelets in an MCI simulation. The small sample size did not allow for external validity of the results. The initially calculated number of participants (N = 12) was not reached for operational reasons. The use of bracelets may have a place in the medico-organizational act of tactical triage during MCIs in exclusion zones. Further studies should be conducted to assess the value of triage bracelets by other first responders, including physician-nurse teams.</p>","PeriodicalId":86137,"journal":{"name":"Military surgeon","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mass Casualty Incident: Do Tactical Tag Bracelets Improve Triage Performance by First Responders? A Randomized Controlled Mass Casualty Incident Simulation and Response of A French Gendarmerie Elite Unit.\",\"authors\":\"Julien Galant, Simon-Pierre Corcostegui, David Marrache, Luc Saint-Jean, Vincent Desrobert, Cédric Boutillier du Retail, François Lecomte\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/milmed/usac023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Tactical triage replaces primary triage in the exclusion zone in mass murder or terrorist events to prioritize victims requiring life-saving interventions (LSIs) and/or rapid extraction in an environment with a lack of resources and under active threat. French gendarmerie tactical unit medical teams use triage bracelets during mass casualty incidents (MCIs). This study assessed the value of these bracelets in the tactical triage performance of nonhealthcare combat rescue operators in an MCI simulation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare triage performance with and without the use of bracelets based on categorization accuracy, LSIs, and time to end triage.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Two groups of operators were randomly assigned to participate in an MCI simulation alone (10 simulated patients) with (intervention group) or without (control) bracelets. The primary outcome was triage performance assessed by the mass casualty triage performance assessment tools. The results were measured based on the LSI required, triage category, and time of completion of the task. Secondary outcomes were operator-perceived stress and self-efficacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven operators (intervention group n = 5, control group n = 6) participated. Triage performance, based on a maximum score of 90, was better for the intervention group [72.200 (SD = 10.330) vs. 57.000 (SD = 12.961), P = .045]. Self-efficacy was increased after the simulation in the intervention group [45.00 47.2 (SD = 4.147) vs. 50.400 (SD = 5.505), P = .034)].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study to show the best triage performance among nonhealthcare combat rescuers using triage bracelets in an MCI simulation. The small sample size did not allow for external validity of the results. The initially calculated number of participants (N = 12) was not reached for operational reasons. The use of bracelets may have a place in the medico-organizational act of tactical triage during MCIs in exclusion zones. Further studies should be conducted to assess the value of triage bracelets by other first responders, including physician-nurse teams.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":86137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Military surgeon\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Military surgeon\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usac023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/2/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Military surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usac023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在大规模谋杀或恐怖事件中,战术分诊取代了禁区内的主要分诊,优先考虑在缺乏资源和受到积极威胁的环境中需要救生干预(LSIs)和/或快速撤离的受害者。法国宪兵战术部队医疗队在大规模伤亡事件中使用分诊手镯。本研究在MCI模拟中评估了这些手环在非医疗战斗救援操作员的战术分诊性能中的价值。目的比较使用和不使用手环的分类准确率、lsi和结束分诊时间。材料与方法两组操作人员随机分为单独(10名模拟患者)佩戴(干预组)或不佩戴(对照组)手环进行MCI模拟。主要结果是通过大规模伤亡分诊表现评估工具评估分诊表现。结果是根据所需的大规模集成电路、分类类别和完成任务的时间来衡量的。次要结果是操作者感知的压力和自我效能。结果干预组5例,对照组6例。在分值最高为90分的基础上,干预组的分诊表现更好[72.200 (SD = 10.330) vs. 57.000 (SD = 12.961), P = 0.045]。干预组自我效能感在模拟后有所提高[45.00 - 47.2 (SD = 4.147) vs. 50.400 (SD = 5.505), P = 0.034]。这是第一个在MCI模拟中显示使用分诊手环在非医疗救援人员中的最佳分诊性能的研究。小样本量没有考虑到结果的外部有效性。由于操作原因,没有达到最初计算的参与者人数(N = 12)。在隔离区MCIs期间,使用手环可能在战术分类的医疗组织行为中占有一席之地。应该进行进一步的研究,以评估其他急救人员(包括医生-护士团队)的分诊手镯的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mass Casualty Incident: Do Tactical Tag Bracelets Improve Triage Performance by First Responders? A Randomized Controlled Mass Casualty Incident Simulation and Response of A French Gendarmerie Elite Unit.

Introduction: Tactical triage replaces primary triage in the exclusion zone in mass murder or terrorist events to prioritize victims requiring life-saving interventions (LSIs) and/or rapid extraction in an environment with a lack of resources and under active threat. French gendarmerie tactical unit medical teams use triage bracelets during mass casualty incidents (MCIs). This study assessed the value of these bracelets in the tactical triage performance of nonhealthcare combat rescue operators in an MCI simulation.

Objectives: To compare triage performance with and without the use of bracelets based on categorization accuracy, LSIs, and time to end triage.

Materials and methods: Two groups of operators were randomly assigned to participate in an MCI simulation alone (10 simulated patients) with (intervention group) or without (control) bracelets. The primary outcome was triage performance assessed by the mass casualty triage performance assessment tools. The results were measured based on the LSI required, triage category, and time of completion of the task. Secondary outcomes were operator-perceived stress and self-efficacy.

Results: Eleven operators (intervention group n = 5, control group n = 6) participated. Triage performance, based on a maximum score of 90, was better for the intervention group [72.200 (SD = 10.330) vs. 57.000 (SD = 12.961), P = .045]. Self-efficacy was increased after the simulation in the intervention group [45.00 47.2 (SD = 4.147) vs. 50.400 (SD = 5.505), P = .034)].

Conclusions: This is the first study to show the best triage performance among nonhealthcare combat rescuers using triage bracelets in an MCI simulation. The small sample size did not allow for external validity of the results. The initially calculated number of participants (N = 12) was not reached for operational reasons. The use of bracelets may have a place in the medico-organizational act of tactical triage during MCIs in exclusion zones. Further studies should be conducted to assess the value of triage bracelets by other first responders, including physician-nurse teams.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信