背景:战斗伤员护理需要学习一套复杂的技能,以在具有挑战性的情况下治疗患者,包括资源稀缺的环境,多起伤亡事件,在火灾下的照顾。为了培训有效和适当地应对这些不同条件所需的技能,教师采用了各种各样的模拟模式。医学训练的模拟模式包括人体模型,任务训练员,标准化的患者参与者(即,角色扮演者),计算机或扩展现实模拟(例如,虚拟现实,增强现实),尸体,和现场组织训练。模拟模态在多个属性上彼此不同(例如,现实主义,可用性)。这项研究的目的是从经验丰富的军医的角度比较战斗伤亡护理的各种模拟方式的能力。
方法:为了更全面地了解模态的相对优点和局限性,在为期5天的技术实验活动中,军事战斗医务人员(N=33)对模拟模式的能力进行了调查,他们观察了行业开发人员的医学模拟。调查要求他们对七种属性中的每一种进行11种模式的评分。为了引出额外的优势背景,局限性,以及使用每种模式的独特考虑,我们还收集了开放式评论,以进一步了解何时以及如何使用特定的模拟模式。
结果:结果显示不同属性的模拟模态之间存在差异。尸体,角色扮演,霉菌,和活组织都在两个或多个属性上获得了很高的评价。然而,没有一种模式被统一评为优于其他模式。相反,根据培训环境和目标,模式似乎有独特的优势和局限性。例如,尸体被认为是高度现实的,但不是很可重复使用。
结论:这项研究进一步加深了我们对医学训练模拟模式的理解,为战斗医务人员提供了有关益处的见解,局限性,以及根据培训环境实施不同模式的考虑。这些结果可能有助于教师为他们的课程选择模式。
BACKGROUND: Combat casualty care requires learning a complex set of skills to treat patients in challenging situations, including resource scarce environments, multiple casualty incidents, and care under fire. To train the skills needed to respond efficiently and appropriately to these diverse conditions, instructors employ a wide array of simulation modalities. Simulation modalities for medical training include manikins, task trainers, standardized patient actors (i.e., role players), computer or extended reality simulations (e.g., virtual reality, augmented reality), cadavers, and live tissue training. Simulation modalities differ from one another in multiple attributes (e.g., realism, availability). The purpose of this study was to compare capabilities across simulation modalities for combat casualty care from the perspective of experienced military medics.
METHODS: To provide a more complete understanding of the relative merits and limitations of modalities, military combat medics (N = 33) were surveyed on the capabilities of simulation modalities during a 5-day technical experimentation event where they observed medical simulations from industry developers. The survey asked them to rate each of eleven modalities on each of seven attributes. To elicit additional context for the strengths, limitations, and unique considerations of using each modality, we also collected open-ended comments to provide further insight on when and how to use specific simulation modalities.
RESULTS: Results showed differences among the simulation modalities by attribute. Cadavers, role play, moulage, and live tissue all received high ratings on two or more attributes. However, there was no modality that was rated uniformly superior to the others. Instead, modalities appear to have unique strengths and limitations depending on the training context and objectives. For example, cadavers were seen as highly realistic, but not very reusable.
CONCLUSIONS: The study furthers our understanding of simulation modalities for medical training by providing insight from combat medics on the benefits, limitations, and considerations for implementing different modalities depending on the training context. These results may be helpful to instructors in selecting modalities for their programs.