ABSTRACT
Introduction: The COVID pandemic has significantly impacted educational development and delivery, yet there is little quantitative research on this topic. The primary objective of this study was to compare the total number of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Refresher (ER) course completions during 2020 versus prior years. Secondary outcomes examined in person versus on-line/distributive learning during the study period. Methods: The Commission on Accreditation for Prehospital Continuing Education (CAPCE) is the only national organization that accredits continuing education (CE) for paramedics and EMTs and currently has a database with over 14 million CE records. The total number of ER course completions each month in 2020 were compared to 2019 and 2018. We also compared the different educational format types: live in-person (LIP), asynchronous on-line distributive learning (DL), and virtual instructor lead training (VILT) synchronous DL courses. Data was analyzed using descriptive and two-way ANOVA statistics. Results: There were 1,922,783 ER course completions in 2020 versus 1,166,335 in 2019 and 1,074,636 in 2018, representing a 179% increase during the study period. Asynchronous DL course completions in 2020 were 1,830,513 EMS versus 1,078,580 in 2019 and 987,749 in 2018 a 185% increase over the three-year study period. Asynchronous DL monthly means by year was statistically significant, F(2, 99) = 95.632, p < .001. Mean monthly LIP and VLIT educational deliveries by year were not significantly different, p = .802, p = .754, respectively. Total LIP course completions in 2020 were 20,045 versus 51,552 in 2019 and 63,058 in 2018. In 2020 LIP courses made up only 1.0% (20,045/1,922,783) of all ER completions. This study was limited to only EMS professionals taking ER course completions in the CAPCE database. However EMS is not unique, since previous research has suggested that DL has flourished in other health care disciplines while LIP courses have continued to decrease. Conclusion: This large nationwide study of EMS profession has shown the trend toward DL education and a trend away from LIP courses. Future studies should examine the advantages and disadvantages of DL education.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Emergency Medical Technicians , Allied Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , LearningABSTRACT
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic it is anticipated that there will be a shortage of mechanical ventilators available for patients in critical condition. This has sparked many discussions about rationing resources and withholding care;however, an alternative may be to implement manual ventilation in these situations instead. Manual ventilation and a safety device were assessed for efficacy of extended use, such as may be required during this pandemic. Methods: To evaluate physical output characteristics of extended manual ventilation and efficacy of a barotrauma mitigation device, 47 medical students, nurses and medics completed two 1-hour manual ventilation sessions using the SmartLung 2000 Lung Simulator and 5300 Series Mass Flow Meter with a SPUR II resuscitator bag and endotracheal tube, mimicking a healthy adult with normal lung physiology, both with and without the Sotair device. Providers were randomised to complete their initial session either with or without the Sotair device. Findings: Collected data show wide variability in tidal volume and peak pressure in unmitigated manual breaths despite prior training and independent exploration of the resuscitation equipment prior to testing. The mean (±SD) tidal volume with bag only was 563.9±128.8 mL and with the safety device 536.1±80.9 mL (p<0.0001). The mean peak inspiratory pressure with bag only was 17.2±6.3 cm H2O and with the safety device 14.9±2.4 cm H2O (p<0.0001). Interpretation: While extended manual ventilation cannot replace mechanical ventilation, it is feasible with a safety device, which may reduce barotrauma, underventilation and overventilation. These results also demonstrate that withholding care and rationing resources may not be necessary. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.