Eficacia del Quick Rescue (dispositivo flotante autoinflable para el rescate de ahogados en el mar) en comparación con el tubo y la boya de rescate / Quick Rescue self-inflating flotation device for rescuing sea swimmers in distress versus conventional tube or buoy rescues

RESUMEN

Objetivos: El Quick Rescue es un nuevo dispositivo flotante de rescate (DFR) autoinflable. Se compara su eficacia frente al tubo y la boya de rescate ante una víctima con distrés en el mar, y la fatiga del socorrista tras los rescates con los distintos DFR. Método: Estudio cuasiexperimental con aleatorización de condiciones (sin DFR, con tubo de rescate, con boya de rescate y con Quick Rescue). Cada participante realizó cuatro rescates de víctima con distrés a 100 m en el mar, con estandarización de las condiciones ambientales, tipo de víctima y playa. Se registró el tiempo de rescate (total, aproximación, control de víctima y remolque) y la percepción del esfuerzo (total y segmentaria) de los socorristas. Resultados: En general, no hubo diferencias entre las cuatro condiciones en los tiempos de rescate. A excepción del tiempo de control de la víctima, que sin material fue en torno a 3 segundos inferior que en las tres condiciones con DFR (p < 0,05). No hubo diferencias en la percepción del esfuerzo total ni segmentaria entre condiciones. Conclusiones: El DFR autoinflable Quick Rescue presenta una validez similar a los DFR habituales en relación a los tiempos de rescate y la fatiga. Por lo tanto, recomendamos su uso para víctimas distrés en el mar

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of the new self-inflatable Quick Rescue (QR) flotation device to conventional tube and buoy devices. To compare lifeguard fatigue after rescues with different flotation devices. Methods: Forty lifeguards participated in this quasi-experimental field study. Each performed simulated rescues of sea swimmers in distress under 4 conditions (no device, the QR device, a tube, and a buoy) assigned in random order. The swimmer in distress was located at a distance of 100 m. Ambient conditions, victim type, and beach were standardized. Participants underwent training to use the inflatable QR float and all other devices. Expertise was defined as a score of at least 3 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. We recorded rescue times (total, and approaching, securing and towing back the distressed swimmer) as well as the lifeguards’ perceptions of effort (overall and for each stage). Results: Most rescue times did not differ between conditions, with the exception of time needed to secure the victim, which was shorter by 3 seconds when no device was used (P<.05). The rescuers did not perceive differences between devices in overall effort or effort during any of the phases. Conclusions: The new self-inflating QR device is as useful as other flotation devices in terms of rescue