Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Can a Rescuer or Simulated Patient Accurately Assess Motion During Cervical Spine Stabilization Practice Sessions? JOURNAL OF ATHLETIC TRAINING Shrier, I., Boissy, P., Briere, S., Mellette, J., Fecteau, L., Matheson, G. O., Garza, D., Meeuwisse, W. H., Segal, E., Boulay, J., Steele, R. J. 2012; 47 (1): 42-51

Abstract

Health care providers must be prepared to manage all potential spine injuries as if they are unstable. Therefore, most sport teams devote resources to training for sideline cervical spine (C-spine) emergencies.To determine (1) how accurately rescuers and simulated patients can assess motion during C-spine stabilization practice and (2) whether providing performance feedback to rescuers influences their choice of stabilization technique.Crossover study.Training studio.Athletic trainers, athletic therapists, and physiotherapists experienced at managing suspected C-spine injuries.Twelve lead rescuers (at the patient's head) performed both the head-squeeze and trap-squeeze C-spine stabilization maneuvers during 4 test scenarios: lift-and-slide and log-roll placement on a spine board and confused patient trying to sit up or rotate the head.Interrater reliability between rescuer and simulated patient quality scores for subjective evaluation of C-spine stabilization during trials (O = best, 10 = worst), correlation between rescuers' quality scores and objective measures of motion with inertial measurement units, and frequency of change in preference for the head-squeeze versus trap-squeeze maneuver.Although the weighted ? value for interrater reliability was acceptable (0.71-0.74), scores varied by 2 points or more between rescuers and simulated patients for approximately 10% to 15% of trials. Rescuers' scores correlated with objective measures, but variability was large: 38% of trials scored as 0 or 1 by the rescuer involved more than 10° of motion in at least 1 direction. Feedback did not affect the preference for the lift-and-slide placement. For the log-roll placement, 6 of 8 participants who preferred the head squeeze at baseline preferred the trap squeeze after feedback. For the confused patient, 5 of 5 participants initially preferred the head squeeze but preferred the trap squeeze after feedback.Rescuers and simulated patients could not adequately assess performance during C-spine stabilization maneuvers without objective measures. Providing immediate feedback in this context is a promising tool for changing behavior preferences and improving training.

View details for Web of Science ID 000300335300005

View details for PubMedID 22488229