背景:通常要求医疗保健提供者应对飞行中的医疗紧急情况,但是缺乏对预期供应的熟悉,干预措施,和地面医疗控制支持。
目的:这项研究的目的是确定手机应用程序(airRx)是否可以改善对模拟飞行中医疗紧急情况的反应。
方法:这是一项志愿者的随机研究,非急诊住院医师参与者在有或没有应用程序的情况下管理模拟飞行中医疗紧急情况.模拟在模拟中心的模拟舱内进行。标准化参与者扮演病人,家庭成员,和空乘角色。Live,非盲评级与偶尔的视频回顾一起用于数据澄清.参与者参加了两次模拟飞行中的医疗紧急情况(呼吸急促和晕厥),并使用检查表和全球评定量表(GRS)进行了评估。检查表项目成功率,关键关键行动时间,GRS,比较了模拟前对飞行中医疗紧急情况管理的信心。
结果:研究中每个臂有29名参与者(应用与对照;N=58)。应用与对照组的完成清单项目的平均百分比为呼吸急促的平均56.1(SD10.3)与平均49.4(SD7.4)(P=.001),晕厥的平均58(SD8.1)与平均49.8(SD7.0)(P<.001)。晕厥病例的应用改善了GRS(平均3.14,SD0.89与对照平均2.6,SD0.97;P=.003),但不是气短的情况下(平均2.90,SD0.97与对照平均2.81,SD0.80;P=.43)。对于定时检查表项目,在这两种情况下,应用组都更快地联系了地面支持,但对照组完成生命体征和基本检查的速度更快。两组都对他们的模拟后调查表示了更高的信心,但应用小组在这项措施中表现出更大的增长。
结论:使用airRx应用程序提示了一些操作,但耽误了其他人。模拟性能和反馈表明,该应用程序是管理飞行中医疗紧急情况的有用附件。
BACKGROUND: Health care providers are often called to respond to in-flight medical emergencies, but lack familiarity with expected supplies, interventions, and ground medical control support.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether a mobile phone app (airRx) improves responses to simulated in-flight medical emergencies.
METHODS: This was a randomized study of volunteer, nonemergency resident physician participants who managed simulated in-flight medical emergencies with or without the app. Simulations took place in a mock-up cabin in the simulation center. Standardized participants played the patient, family member, and flight attendant roles. Live, nonblinded rating was used with occasional video review for data clarification. Participants participated in two simulated in-flight medical emergencies (shortness of breath and syncope) and were evaluated with checklists and global rating scales (GRS). Checklist item success rates, key critical action times, GRS, and pre-post simulation confidence in managing in-flight medical emergencies were compared.
RESULTS: There were 29 participants in each arm (app vs control; N=58) of the study. Mean percentages of completed checklist items for the app versus control groups were mean 56.1 (SD 10.3) versus mean 49.4 (SD 7.4) for shortness of breath (P=.001) and mean 58 (SD 8.1) versus mean 49.8 (SD 7.0) for syncope (P<.001). The GRS improved with the app for the syncope case (mean 3.14, SD 0.89 versus control mean 2.6, SD 0.97; P=.003), but not the shortness of breath case (mean 2.90, SD 0.97 versus control mean 2.81, SD 0.80; P=.43). For timed checklist items, the app group contacted ground support faster for both cases, but the control group was faster to complete vitals and basic exam. Both groups indicated higher confidence in their postsimulation surveys, but the app group demonstrated a greater increase in this measure.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the airRx app prompted some actions, but delayed others. Simulated performance and feedback suggest the app is a useful adjunct for managing in-flight medical emergencies.