4.5 Article

Current Patterns of Prehospital Trauma Care in Kampala, Uganda and the Feasibility of a Lay-First-Responder Training Program

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 33, 期 12, 页码 2512-2521

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-009-0180-6

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Hellman Foundation
  2. Laura Case Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Uganda currently has no organized prehospital emergency system. We sought to measure the current burden of injury seen by lay people in Kampala, Uganda and to determine the feasibility of a lay first-responder training program. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of current prehospital care providers in Kampala: police officers, minibus taxi drivers, and Local Council officials, and collected data on types and frequencies of emergencies witnessed, barriers to aid provision, history of training, and current availability of first-aid supplies. A context-appropriate course on basic first-aid for trauma was designed and implemented. We measured changes in trainees' fund of knowledge before and after training. Results A total of 309 lay people participated in the study, and during the previous 6 months saw 18 traumatic emergencies each; 39% saw an injury-related death. The most common injury mechanisms were road crashes, assault, and burns. In these cases, 90% of trainees provided some aid, most commonly lifting (82%) or transport (76%). Fifty-two percent of trainees had previous first-aid training, 44% had some access to equipment, and 32% had ever purchased a first-aid kit. Before training, participants answered 45% of test questions correctly (mean %) and this increased to 86% after training (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Lay people witness many emergencies and deaths in Kampala, Uganda and provide much needed care but are ill-prepared to do so. A context-appropriate prehospital trauma care course can be developed and improve lay people's knowledge of basic trauma care. The effectiveness of such a training program needs to be evaluated prospectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据