Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Training of clinical triage of acute radiation casualties: a performance comparison ofon-siteversusonlinetraining due to the covid-19 pandemic.
Lamkowski, Andreas; Combs, Stephanie E; Abend, Michael; Port, Matthias.
  • Lamkowski A; Bundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology affiliated to the University Ulm, Neuherbergstrasse 11, Munich 80937, Germany.
  • Combs SE; Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
  • Abend M; Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1 85764 Neuherberg, Germany.
  • Port M; Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site, Munich, Germany.
J Radiol Prot ; 41(4)2021 11 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1517769
ABSTRACT
A collection of powerful diagnostic tools have been developed under the umbrellas of NATO for ionising radiation dose assessment (BAT, WinFRAT) and estimate of acute health effects in humans (WinFRAT, H-Module). We assembled a database of 191 ARS cases using the medical treatment protocols for radiation accident victims (n= 167) and the system for evaluation and archiving of radiation accidents based on case histories (n= 24) for training purposes of medical personnel. From 2016 to 2019, we trained 39 participants comprising MSc level radiobiology students in an on-site teaching class. Enforced by the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 for the first time, an online teaching of nine MSc radiobiology students replaced the on-site teaching. We found that (a) limitations of correct diagnostic decision-making based on clinical signs and symptoms were experienced unrelated to the teaching format. (b) A significant performance decrease concerning online (first number in parenthesis) versus on-site teaching (reference and second number in parenthesis) was seen regarding the estimate time (31 vs 61 cases per hour, two-fold decrease,p= 0.005). Also, the accurate assessment of response categories (89.9% vs 96.9%,p= 0.001), ARS (92.4% vs 96.7%,p= 0.002) and hospitalisation (93.5% vs 97.0%,p= 0.002) decreased by around 3%-7%. The performances of the online attendees were mainly distributed within the lower quartile performance of on-site participants and the 25%-75% interquartile range increased 3-7-fold. (c) Comparison of dose estimates performed by training participants with hematologic acute radiation syndrome (HARS) severity mirrored the known limitations of dose alone as a surrogate parameter for HARS severity at doses less than 1.5 Gy, but demonstrated correct determination of HARS 2-4 and support for clinical decision making at dose estimates >1.5 Gy, regardless of teaching format. (d) Overall, one-third of the online participants showed substantial misapprehension and insecurities of elementary course content that did not occur after the on-site teaching.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Triage / Education, Distance / Emergency Medicine / Acute Radiation Syndrome Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal subject: Radiology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 1361-6498

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Triage / Education, Distance / Emergency Medicine / Acute Radiation Syndrome Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal subject: Radiology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 1361-6498