OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of training for the Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) for medical and nursing staff working in emergency care as measured by their performance in a simulated burn incident online program.METHODS: An Internet-based questionnaire, which included a simulated burn incident, was developed. All of the medical and nursing staff in hospital emergency departments and ambulance services in the Netherlands were invited to complete this questionnaire. The effect of EMSB training on the individual's knowledge of and performance in the emergency management of a burn victim was evaluated because some of the respondents had participated in EMSB training, whereas others had not.RESULTS: Of the 280 responses received, 198 questionnaires were included in the analysis. The analyzed questionnaires were submitted by nurses (43%), ambulance workers (33%), and physicians (23%). Only 14% of the people in the study had participated in EMSB training, whereas 78% had received other or additional life support training and 22% of respondents had no additional life support training. Medical and nursing staff who had participated in EMSB training performed better in the following subjects: mentioning hypothermia as a focus of attention (70% versus 53%, p=0.085), correct use of hand size (70% versus 36%, p=0.001) and use of the correct hand percentage in the estimation of total body surface area (TBSA, 82% versus 57%, p=0.015), suspicion of no airway obstruction in an outdoor trauma (93% versus 63%, p = 0.002) and referral of functional area burns to a burn center (22% versus 8%, p = 0.04). However, both groups overestimated the TBSA (34% of the total group overestimated ≥ 20%) and did not know the correct formula for fluid resuscitation (87% of the total group).CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that medical staff members who have participated in EMSB training have a better knowledge of emergency management and are more effective in the management of a simulated burn case. However, both individuals who had participated in EMSB as well as those who had not participated in EMSB needed additional training in EMSB.
Background: Non-technical errors, such as insufficient communication or leadership, are a major cause of medical failures during trauma resuscitation. Research on staffing variation among trauma teams on teamwork is still in their infancy. In this study, the extent of variation in trauma team staffing was assessed. Our hypothesis was that there would be a high variation in trauma team staffing. Methods: Trauma team composition of consecutive resuscitations of injured patients were evaluated using videos. All trauma team members that where part of a trauma team during a trauma resuscitation were identified and classified during a one-week period. Other outcomes were number of unique team members, number of new team members following the previous resuscitation and new team members following the previous resuscitation in the same shift (Day, Evening, Night). Results: All thirty-two analyzed resuscitations had a unique trauma team composition and 101 unique members were involved. A mean of 5.71 (SD 2.57) new members in teams of consecutive trauma resuscitations was found, which was two-third of the trauma team. Mean team members present during trauma resuscitation was 8.38 (SD 1.43). Most variation in staffing was among nurses (32 unique members), radiology technicians (22 unique members) and anesthetists (19 unique members). The least variation was among trauma surgeons (3 unique members) and ER physicians (3 unique members). Conclusion: We found an extremely high variation in trauma team staffing during thirty-two consecutive resuscitations at our level one trauma center which is incorporated in an academic teaching hospital. Further research is required to explore and prevent potential negative effects of staffing variation in trauma teams on teamwork, processes and patient related outcomes.
Background: A new selective preventive spinal immobilization (PSI) protocol was introduced in the Netherlands. This may have led to an increase in non-immobilized spinal fractures (NISFs) and consequently adverse patient outcomes. Aim: A pilot study was conducted to describe the adverse patient outcomes in NISF of the PSI protocol change and assess the feasibility of a larger effect study. Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort pilot study including records of trauma patients with a presumed spinal injury who were presented at the emergency department of a level 2 trauma center by the emergency medical service (EMS). The pre-period 2013-2014 (strict PSI protocol), was compared to the post-period 2017-2018 (selective PSI protocol). Primary outcomes were the percentage of records with a NISF who had an adverse patient outcome such as neurological injuries and mortality before and after the protocol change. Secondary outcomes were the sample size calculation for a larger study and the feasibility of data collection. Results: 1,147 records were included; 442 pre-period, and 705 post-period. The NISF-prevalence was 10% (95% CI 7-16, n = 19) and 8% (95% CI 6-11, n = 33), respectively. In both periods, no neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found, by which calculating a sample size is impossible. Data collection showed to be feasible. Conclusions: No neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found in a strict and a selective PSI protocol. Therefore, a larger study is discouraged. Future studies should focus on which patients really profit from PSI and which patients do not.
