BackgroundPenetrating trauma kills rapidly. Thorough and efficient examination and aggressive hemorrhage control is important to save lives. The aim of this study was to assess the skills of civilian Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) in bleeding examination and control compared to Army Medics. Our hypothesis was that civilian pre‐hospital systems perform at a lower level compared to an expert group, and did not have sufficient focus on education and training in examination and treatment of penetrating injuries.Material and methodsWe included 60 volunteer Certified EMTs and Army Medics. First, the participants examined a wounded patient. Second, the participants were presented a patient with a penetrating injury on a pork side fixated to the thigh with an artificial arterial bleeding.ResultsThe EMTs took significantly shorter time examining, median 1 min 5 s vs. 3 min 58 s (P < 0.001). 5/30 (17%) of EMTs and 28/30 (93%) of army medics did an approved gauze wound packing of the penetrating injury (P < 0.001). EMTs took (median) 18 s and army medics 8 s to hemostasis regardless of approved packing or not (P < 0.001). Time spent on the packing was (median) 1 min 50 s vs. 5 min 47 s respectively (P < 0.001). Increasing time spent on the procedure showed significantly better chance of a successful procedure.ConclusionThe EMTs had lower accuracy in examination but used significantly shorter time than the Army Medics. The treatment part of the study showed poor EMT performance compared to the Army Medics. This study indicates that more wound packing training needs to be incorporated into initial and ongoing civilian EMT training.

Objective: Recent terror attacks led the Norwegian government to develop a procedure for emergency and law enforcement services cooperation during Active Violent Incidents (AVI, abbreviated PLIVO in Norwegian). To address further national initiatives to improve preparedness for mass casualty events and penetrating injuries among emergency medical services (EMS) in Norway, training and equipment status were mapped. Methods: All EMS regions in Norway were invited to participate in an electronic nation-wide survey about practical medical training in PLIVO scenario training and specific training in hemorrhage control and penetrating injuries. Results: Ninety percent (842/938) had attended at least 1 PLIVO training scenario. Of these, 76% (642/938) reported only evacuation training during the exercise, while only 20% (168/938) had practiced hemorrhage control. Eighty-one percent (760/938) respondents reported that they were equipped with tourniquets and 91% (853/938) were equipped with gauze to pack wounds. However, only 52% (487/938) and 48% (450/938) reported practical training in tourniquet application and wound packing, respectively, while 30% (280/938) reported that they had no training or only theoretical education in tourniquet application. Supervised practical training on penetrating thoracic injuries was reported by <20%, and <50% reported practical training in needle decompression of a tension pneumothorax. Conclusions: Enhanced focus on training in hemorrhage control and penetrating injuries is needed. This supports the recent decision from the Norwegian government to strengthen the training for EMS in AVI (PLIVO) exercises, by focusing on medical procedures in addition to evacuation training. Although the estimated response rate is 17%, we believe the large number of respondents still make the results valuable.

No abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to train and assess firefighters’ skill attainment in the use of tourniquets, and to assess their skill retention after 3 mo. The purpose is to show if firefighters can successfully apply a tourniquet after a short course based on the Norwegian national recommendation for civil prehospital tourniquet use. Methods: This is a prospective experimental study. The study population were firefighters, and the inclusion criterion was any on-duty firefighter. The first phase consisted of baseline precourse testing (T1), a 45-min course, followed by immediate retesting (T2). The second phase consisted of retesting of skill retention after 3 mo (T3). Results: A total of 109 participants at T1, 105 at T2, and 62 participants at T3. The firefighters achieved a higher proportion of successful tourniquet applications at T2 (91.4%; 96 of 105) as well as T3 (87.1%; 54 of 62) compared with 50.5% at T1 (55 of 109) (P = 0.009). Mean application time was 59.6 s (55.1-64.2) in T1, 34.9 s (33.3-36.6) in T2 and 37.7 s (33.9-41.4) in T3. Conclusion: A sample of firefighters can successfully apply a tourniquet after a 45-min course based on the 2019 Norwegian recommendation for civil prehospital tourniquet use. Skill retention after 3 mo was satisfactory for both successful application and application time.