Using the Kirkpatrick Model to Evaluate the Effect of a Primary Trauma Care Course on Health Care Workers' Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice in Two Vietnamese Local Hospitals: Prospective Intervention Study

Background

The Primary Trauma Care (PTC) course was originally developed to instruct health care workers in the management of patients with severe injuries in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with limited medical resources. PTC has now been taught for more than 25 years. Many studies have demonstrated that the 2-day PTC workshop is useful and informative to frontline health staff and has helped improve knowledge and confidence in trauma management; however, there is little evidence of the effect of the course on changes in clinical practice. The Kirkpatrick model (KM) and the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) model are effective methods to evaluate this question.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate how the 2-day PTC course impacts the satisfaction, knowledge, and skills of health care workers in 2 Vietnamese hospitals using a conceptual framework incorporating the KAP model and the 4-level KM as evaluation tools.

Methods

The PTC course was delivered over 2 days in the emergency departments (EDs) of Thanh Hoa and Ninh Binh hospitals in February and March 2022, respectively. This study followed a prospective pre- and postintervention design. We used validated instruments to assess the participants' satisfaction, knowledge, and skills before, immediately after, and 6 months after course delivery. The Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test were used to compare the percentages and mean scores at the pretest, posttest, and 6-month postcourse follow-up time points among course participants.

Results

A total of 80 health care staff members attended the 2-day PTC course and nearly 100% of the participants were satisfied with the course. At level 2 of the KM (knowledge), the scores on multiple-choice questions and the confidence matrix improved significantly from 60% to 77% and from 59% to 71%, respectively (P<.001), and these improvements were seen in both subgroups (nurses and doctors). The focus of level 3 was on practice, demonstrating a significant incremental change, with scenarios checklist points increasing from a mean of 5.9 (SD 1.9) to 9.0 (SD 0.9) and bedside clinical checklist points increasing from a mean of 5 (SD 1.5) to 8.3 (SD 0.8) (both P<.001). At the 6-month follow-up, the scores for multiple-choice questions, the confidence matrix, and scenarios checklist all remained unchanged, except for the multiple-choice question score in the nurse subgroup (P=.005).

Conclusions

The PTC course undertaken in 2 local hospitals in Vietnam was successful in demonstrating improvements at 3 levels of the KM for ED health care staff. The improvements in the confidence matrix and scenarios checklist were maintained for at least 6 months after the course. PTC courses should be effective in providing and sustaining improvement in knowledge and trauma care practice in other LMICs such as Vietnam.

Barriers to Trauma Care in South and Central America: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Trauma is widespread in Central and South America and is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Providing high quality emergency trauma care is of great importance. Understanding the barriers to care is challenging; this systematic review aims to establish current the current challenges and barriers in providing high-quality trauma care within the 21 countries in the region.

METHODS

OVID Medline, Embase, EBM reviews and Global Health databases were systematically searched in October 2020. Records were screened by two independent researchers. Data were extracted according to a predetermined proforma. Studies of any type, published in the preceding decade were included, excluding grey literature and non-English records. Trauma was defined as blunt or penetrating injury from an external force. Studies were individually critically appraised and assessed for bias using the RTI item bank.

RESULTS

57 records met the inclusion criteria. 20 countries were covered at least once. Nine key barriers were identified: training (37/57), resources and equipment (33/57), protocols (29/57), staffing (17/57), transport and logistics (16/57), finance (15/57), socio-cultural (13/57), capacity (9/57), public education (4/57).

CONCLUSION

Nine key barriers negatively impact on the provision of high-quality trauma care and highlight potential areas for improving care in Central & South America. Many countries in the region, along with rural areas, are under-represented by the current literature and future research is urgently required to assess barriers to trauma management in these countries. No funding was received.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020220380.

Trauma Training Courses and Programs in Low- and Lower Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Injury is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and lower middle-income countries (LMICs). Trauma training is a cost-effective way to improve injury outcomes. Several trauma programs have been implemented in LMICs; however, their scope and effectiveness remain unclear. In this review, we sought to describe and assess the current state of trauma training in LMICs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global for trauma training courses in LMICs. An additional gray literature search was conducted on university, governmental, and non- governmental organizations' websites to identify trauma-related postgraduate medical education (PGME) opportunities.

RESULTS

Most studies occurred in sub-Saharan Africa and participants were primarily physicians/surgeons, medical students/residents, and nurses. General and surgical trauma management courses were most common, followed by orthopedic trauma or plastic surgery trauma/burn care courses. 32/45 studies reported on participant knowledge and skills, 27 of which had minimal follow-up. Of the four studies commenting on cost of courses, only one demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Three articles evaluated post-course effects on patient outcomes, two of which failed to demonstrate significant improvements. Overall, 43.0% of LMICs have PGME programs with defined trauma competency requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies on trauma training in LMICs do not clearly demonstrate sustainability, cost-effectiveness, nor improved outcomes. Trauma training programs should be in response to a need, championed locally, and work within a cohesive system to demonstrate concrete benefits. We recommend standardized and contextualized trauma training with recertifications in LMICs for lasting and improved trauma care.

Are Trauma Surgery Simulation Courses Beneficial in Low- and Middle-Income Countries—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite trauma-related injuries being a leading cause of death worldwide, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) lack the infrastructure and resources required to offer immediate surgical care, further perpetuating the risk of morbidity and mortality. In high-income countries, trauma surgery simulation courses are routinely delivered to surgeons, teaching the fundamental skills of operative trauma. This study aimed to assess whether similar courses are beneficial in LMICs and how they can be improved. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, Embase and Google Scholar, analysing studies evaluating trauma surgery simulation in LMICs. The outcomes measured included clinical knowledge improvement, participant confidence and general course-feedback. The review was carried out in-line with PRISMA guidelines. Five studies were included, summating a population of 172 participants. In three studies, meta-analysis showed an overall significant weighted mean improvement of knowledge post-course by 22.91% (95%CI 19.53, 26.29; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). One study reported a significant increase in participant confidence for 20/22 of operative skills taught (p < 0.04). We conclude that these courses are beneficial in LMICs; however, further research is necessary to establish the optimum course design, and whether patient outcomes are improved following their implementation. Collaboration between international trauma institutions is essential for closing the educational resource inequality gap between higher- and lower-income countries.

Emergency Medicine Training Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Background

Despite the growing interest in the development of emergency care systems and emergency medicine (EM) as a specialty globally, there still exists a significant gap between the need for and the provision of emergency care by specialty trained providers. Many efforts to date to expand the practice of EM have focused on programs developed through partnerships between higher- and lower-resource settings.

Objective

To systematically review the literature to evaluate the composition of EM training programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) developed through partnerships.

Methods

An electronic search was conducted using four databases for manuscripts on EM training programs - defined as structured education and/or training in the methods, procedures, and techniques of acute or emergency care - developed through partnerships. The search produced 7702 results. Using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria, 94 manuscripts were included. After scoring these manuscripts, a more in-depth examination of 26 of the high-scoring manuscripts was conducted.

Findings

Fifteen highlight programs with a focus on specific EM content (i.e. ultrasound) and 11 cover EM programs with broader scopes. All outline programs with diverse curricula and varied educational and evaluative methods spanning from short courses to full residency programs, and they target learners from medical students and nurses to mid-level providers and physicians. Challenges of EM program development through partnerships include local adaptation of international materials; addressing the local culture(s) of learning, assessment, and practice; evaluation of impact; sustainability; and funding.

Conclusions

Overall, this review describes a diverse group of programs that have been or are currently being implemented through partnerships. Additionally, it highlights several areas for program development, including addressing other topic areas within EM beyond trauma and ultrasound and evaluating outcomes beyond the level of the learner. These steps to develop effective programs will further the advancement of EM as a specialty and enhance the development of effective emergency care systems globally.

Are Primary Trauma Care (PTC) courses beneficial in low- and middle-income countries - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Injuries remain an important public health concern, resulting in considerable annual morbidity and mortality. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the lack of appropriate infrastructure, equipment and skilled personnel compound the burden of injury, leading to higher mortality rates. As Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) courses remain uneconomical and inappropriate in LMICs, the Primary Trauma Care (PTC) course was introduced to provide an alternative that is both sustainable and appropriate to local resources.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in May 2019, utilising MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. All studies reporting patient related outcomes (mortality and morbidity rates) and course participant related outcomes (knowledge, confidence and skills) in LMICs were included. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to throughout.

RESULTS

Nine observational studies were identified (Level 3 evidence). Six studies reported improved knowledge in injury management post-PTC course (p < 0.05). Two studies reported improvements in confidence (p < 0.05) and one on skill attainment (p < 0.0001). One study reported a reduction in mortality rates post-PTC course (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Departmental, institutional and personal improvements may occur in clinical practice as a result of formal PTC training of trauma team members in LMICs. Further high-quality research is needed to evaluate this course's effects on observed change in clinical practice and patient outcomes. This may require long-term observational and epidemiological studies to assess improvements in morbidity and mortality. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42019133986.