La gestion par les médecins des incidents impliquant des matières dangereuses (HAZMAT) nécessite l’utilisation d’équipements de protection individuelle (EPI) pour assurer la sécurité des victimes, des installations et des prestataires ; il est donc essentiel de fournir une formation efficace et accessible sur leur utilisation. Si l’accent a été mis sur l’importance des EPI, les méthodes de formation les plus efficaces font l’objet d’un débat. Les circonstances peuvent ne pas permettre une démonstration traditionnelle en personne ; une formation vidéo accessible peut constituer une alternative utile. Hypothèse : La formation vidéo des résidents en médecine d’urgence (MU) à l’enfilage et à l’enlèvement des EPI de niveau C est plus efficace que la formation en personne Hypothèse nulle : La formation vidéo des résidents en MU à l’enfilage et à l’enlèvement des EPI de niveau C est tout aussi efficace que la formation en personne.
Introduction:Physicians’ management of hazardous material (HAZMAT) incidents requires personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization to ensure the safety of victims, facilities, and providers; therefore, providing effective and accessible training in its use is crucial. While an emphasis has been placed on the importance of PPE, there is debate about the most effective training methods. Circumstances may not allow for a traditional in-person demonstration; an accessible video training may provide a useful alternative.Hypothesis:Video training of Emergency Medicine (EM) residents in the donning and doffing of Level C PPE is more effective than in-person training.Null Hypothesis:Video training of EM residents in the donning and doffing of Level C PPE is equally effective compared with in-person training.Methods:A randomized, controlled pilot trial was performed with 20 EM residents as part of their annual Emergency Preparedness training. Residents were divided into four groups, with Group 1 and Group 2 viewing a demonstration video developed by the Emergency Preparedness Team (EPT) and Group 3 and Group 4 receiving the standard in-person demonstration training by an EPT member. The groups then separately performed a donning and doffing simulation while blinded evaluators assessed critical tasks utilizing a prepared evaluation tool. At the drill’s conclusion, all participants also completed a self-evaluation survey about their subjective interpretations of their respective trainings.Results:Both video and in-person training modalities showed significant overall improvement in participants’ confidence in doffing and donning PPE equipment (P <.05). However, no statistically significant difference was found in the number of failed critical tasks in donning or doffing between the training modalities (P >.05). Based on these results, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. However, these results were limited by the small sample size and the study was not sufficiently powered to show a difference between training modalities.Conclusion:In this pilot study, video and in-person training were equally effective in training for donning and doffing Level C PPE, with similar error rates in both modalities. Further research into this subject with an appropriately powered study is warranted to determine whether this equivalence persists using a larger sample size.