Simulation-based education improves military trainees' skill performance and self-confidence in tourniquet placement: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) is the standard of care for stabilization and treatment of military trauma patients. The Department of Defense has mandated that all service members receive role-based TCCC training and certification. Simulation education can increase procedural skills by providing opportunities for deliberate practice in safe, controlled environments. We developed and evaluated the effectiveness of a simulation-based TCCC training intervention to improve participants' skill performance and self-confidence in tourniquet placement. METHODS: This study was a single-blinded, randomized trial with waitlist controls. Army Reserve Officers Training Corp cadets from a single training battalion comprised the study population. After randomization and baseline assessment of all participants, group A alone received focused, simulation-based TCCC tourniquet application training. Three months later, all participants underwent repeat testing, and after crossover, the waitlist group B received the same intervention. Two months later, all cadets underwent a third/final assessment. The primary outcome was tourniquet placement proficiency assessed by total score achieved on a standardized eight-item skill checklist. A secondary outcome was self-confidence in tourniquet application skill as judged by participants' Likert scale ratings. RESULTS: Forty-three Army Reserve Officers Training Corp cadets completed the study protocol. Participants in both group A (n = 25) and group B (n = 18) demonstrated significantly higher performance from baseline to final assessment at 5 months and 2 months, respectively, following the intervention. Mean total checklist score of the entire study cohort increased significantly from 5.53 (SD = 2.00) at baseline to 7.56 (SD = 1.08) at time 3, a gain of 36.7% ( p < 0.001). Both groups rated their self-confidence in tourniquet placement significantly higher following the training. CONCLUSION: A simulation-based TCCC curriculum resulted in significant, consistent, and sustained improvement in participants' skill proficiency and self-confidence in tourniquet placement. Participants maintained these gains 2 months to 5 months after initial training. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management; Level II.

Just-in-time learning is effective in helping first responders manage weapons of mass destruction events.

BACKGROUND: Chemical, biologic, radiologic, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) incidents require specialized training. The low frequency of these events leads to significant skill decay among first responders. To address skill decay and lack of experience with these high-impact events, educational modules were developed for mobile devices to provide just-in-time training to first responders en route to a CBRNE event. This study assessed the efficacy and usability of the mobile training. METHODS: Ninety first responders were randomized to a control or an intervention group. All participants completed a pretest to measure knowledge of CBRNE topics. The intervention group then viewed personal protective equipment and weapons of mass destruction field management videos as an overview. Both groups were briefed on a disaster scenario (chemical nerve agent, radiologic, or explosives) requiring them to triage, assess, and manage a patient. Intervention group participants watched a mobile training video corresponding to the scenario. The control group did not receive prescenario video training. Observers rated participant performance in each scenario. After completing the scenarios, all participants answered a cognitive posttest. Those in the intervention group also answered a questionnaire on their impressions of the training. RESULTS: The intervention group outperformed the control group in the explosives and chemical nerve agent scenarios; the differences were statistically significant (explosives, mean of 26.32 for intervention and 22.85 for control, p < 0.01; nerve agent, mean of 23.14 for intervention and 16.61 for control, p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the radiologic scenario (mean, 12.7 for intervention and 11.8 for control; p = 0.51). The change in pretest to posttest cognitive scores was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (t = 3.28, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Mobile just-in-time training improved first-responder knowledge of CBRNE events and is an effective tool in helping first responders manage simulated explosive and chemical agent scenarios. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level II.

Assessing the reliability and validity of anti-tobacco attitudes/beliefs in the context of a campaign strategy.

OBJECTIVES: To identify multi-item attitude/belief scales associated with the theoretical foundations of an anti-tobacco counter-marketing campaign and assess their reliability and validity. METHODS: The data analyzed are from two state-wide, random, cross-sectional telephone surveys [n(S1)=1,079, n(S2)=1,150]. Items forming attitude/belief scales are identified using factor analysis. Reliability is assessed with Chronbach's alpha. Relationships among scales are explored using Pearson correlation. Validity is assessed by testing associations derived from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) logic model for tobacco control program development and evaluation linking media exposure to attitudes/beliefs, and attitudes/beliefs to smoking-related behaviors. Adjusted odds ratios are employed for these analyses. RESULTS: Three factors emerged: traditional attitudes/beliefs about tobacco and tobacco use, tobacco industry manipulation and anti-tobacco empowerment. Reliability coefficients are in the range of 0.70 and vary little between age groups. The factors are correlated with one-another as hypothesized. Associations between media exposure and the attitude/belief scales and between these scales and behaviors are consistent with the CDC logic model. CONCLUSIONS: Using reliable, valid multi-item scales is theoretically and methodologically more sound than employing single-item measures of attitudes/beliefs. Methodological, theoretical and practical implications are discussed.