Comparing Training Techniques in Personal Protective Equipment Use.

Autor:	Salway RJ; New York Health and Hospitals, Office of Quality and Safety, New York, New York, USA.; Kings County Hospital Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Brooklyn, New YorkUSA., Williams T; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New HampshireUSA., Londono C; SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, Brooklyn, New YorkUSA., Roblin P; SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, Brooklyn, New YorkUSA., Koenig K; Center for Disaster Medical Sciences, University of California - Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CaliforniaUSA., Arquilla B; SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, Brooklyn, New YorkUSA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Prehospital and disaster medicine [Prehosp Disaster Med] 2020 Aug; Vol. 35 (4), pp. 364-371. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 May 11.
DOI:	10.1017/S1049023X20000564
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Physicians' management of hazardous material (HAZMAT) incidents requires personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization to ensure the safety of victims, facilities, and providers; therefore, providing effective and accessible training in its use is crucial. While an emphasis has been placed on the importance of PPE, there is debate about the most effective training methods. Circumstances may not allow for a traditional in-person demonstration; an accessible video training may provide a useful alternative. Hypothesis: Video training of Emergency Medicine (EM) residents in the donning and doffing of Level C PPE is more effective than in-person training. Null Hypothesis: Video training of EM residents in the donning and doffing of Level C PPE is equally effective compared with in-person training. Methods: A randomized, controlled pilot trial was performed with 20 EM residents as part of their annual Emergency Preparedness training. Residents were divided into four groups, with Group 1 and Group 2 viewing a demonstration video developed by the Emergency Preparedness Team (EPT) and Group 3 and Group 4 receiving the standard in-person demonstration training by an EPT member. The groups then separately performed a donning and doffing simulation while blinded evaluators assessed critical tasks utilizing a prepared evaluation tool. At the drill's conclusion, all participants also completed a self-evaluation survey about their subjective interpretations of their respective trainings. Results: Both video and in-person training modalities showed significant overall improvement in participants' confidence in doffing and donning PPE equipment (P <.05). However, no statistically significant difference was found in the number of failed critical tasks in donning or doffing between the training modalities (P >.05). Based on these results, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. However, these results were limited by the small sample size and the study was not sufficiently powered to show a difference between training modalities. Conclusion: In this pilot study, video and in-person training were equally effective in training for donning and doffing Level C PPE, with similar error rates in both modalities. Further research into this subject with an appropriately powered study is warranted to determine whether this equivalence persists using a larger sample size.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu