Assessment of the accuracy of the Medical Response to Major Incidents (MRMI) course for interactive training of the response to major incidents and disasters.

Background And Aims: The benefit of simulation models for interactive training of the response to major incidents and disasters has been increasingly recognized during recent years and a variety of such models have been reported. However, reviews of this literature show that the majority of these reports have been characterized by significant limitations regarding validation of the accuracy of the training related to given objectives. In this study, precourse and postcourse self-assessment surveys related to the specific training objectives, as an established method for curriculum validation, were used to validate the accuracy of a course in Medical Response to Major Incidents (MRMI) developed and organized by an international group of experts under the auspices of the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery.

Methods: The studied course was an interactive course, where all trainees acted in their normal roles during two full-day simulation exercises with real time and with simultaneous training of the whole chain of response: scene, transport, the different functions in the hospital, communication, coordination, and command. The key component of the system was a bank of magnetized casualty cards, giving all information normally available as a base for decisions on triage and primary management. All treatments were indicated with attachments on the cards and consumed time and resources as in reality. The trainees' performance was recorded according to prepared protocols and a measurable result of the response could be registered. This study was based on five MRMI courses in four different countries with altogether 235 participants from 23 different countries. In addition to conventional course evaluations and recording of the performance during the 2 exercise days, the trainees' perceived competencies related to the specific objectives of the training for different categories of staff were registered on a floating scale 1-10 in self-assessment protocols immediately before and after the course. The results were compared as an indicator of to which extent the training fulfilled the given objectives. These objectives were set by an experienced international faculty and based on experiences from recent major incident and disasters.

Results: Comparison of precourse and postcourse self-assessments of the trainees' perceived knowledge and skills related to the given objectives for the training showed a significant increase in all the registered parameters for all categories of participating staff. The average increase was for prehospital staff 74 percent (p<0.001), hospital staff 65 percent (p<0.001), and staff in coordinating/administrative functions 81 percent (p<0.001).

Conclusions: The significant differences in the trainees' self-assessment of perceived competencies between the precourse and postcourse surveys indicated that the methodology in the studied course model accurately responded to the specific objectives for the different categories of staff.