A Pilot Study on the Role of Experience and Patient Gender on MARCH Treatment Sequence

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction The brevity of training for soldiers and combat medics to learn how to provide treatment on the battlefield may restrict optimal performance for treating chest and airway injuries, particularly when treating female soldiers. The present study tested treatment performance on patient simulators by battlefield medic trainees to determine whether there is a need for more extensive training on chest and airway procedures on female soldiers. Materials and Methods Battlefield medic trainees treated male and female patient simulators in counterbalanced order. The assessment considered the effects of patient gender and order on procedures performed, particularly critical chest and airway interventions such as needle chest decompression (NCD), and considered the appropriate order of treatment tasks. Four coders rated video footage of three simulated procedures, i.e., tourniquet, chest seal (front and back application), and NCD, using a binary coding system to determine completeness and order correctness according to the Massive hemorrhage, Airway, Respiration, Circulation, and Head injury/Hypothermia (MARCH) mnemonic. Results Results from analysis of variance showed that when presented with a female patient first, trainees performed significantly fewer total procedures on both the female and male simulators. More experienced trainees completed significantly more procedures compared to trainees with minimal experience. Results from the binary logistic regression showed that trainees with more experience and trainees presented with the male patient simulator first performed significantly more procedures in the correct order. Finally, an examination of the NCD procedure found that trainees presented with the female patient simulator first had more errors and that trainees with less experience were less likely to perform the procedure adequately. Conclusions The findings suggest that treating a female patient first may lead to undertreatment of both patients. Furthermore, the observed differences in treating sensitive areas of the body (e.g., near female breasts) suggest providing greater opportunities for trainees to practice often missed or incorrectly performed procedures. Treating a female patient remains a novel experience for many trainees, such that trainees are less likely to fully treat a female patient and are less likely to treat female soldiers for the most life-threatening injuries. In fact, the initial presentation of the female patient simulator appeared to affect experienced trainees, suggesting that removing the experience of novelty and stress requires more extensive exposure and alternative training. The study’s small sample size with a wide range of trainee experience may limit the findings, which may fail to capture some study effects. Finally, the study did not request trainees’ experience treating female soldiers, so future studies should examine the extent to which experience is predictive of performance. There is a need for more interactive approaches in patient simulations to provide opportunities for practice, especially those that require the treatment of sensitive areas.