Comparing Capabilities of Simulation Modalities for Training Combat Casualty Care: Perspectives of Combat Medics.

Introduction: Combat casualty care requires learning a complex set of skills to treat patients in challenging situations, including resource scarce environments, multiple casualty incidents, and care under fire. To train the skills needed to respond efficiently and appropriately to these diverse conditions, instructors employ a wide array of simulation modalities. Simulation modalities for medical training include manikins, task trainers, standardized patient actors (i.e., role players), computer or extended reality simulations (e.g., virtual reality, augmented reality), cadavers, and live tissue training. Simulation modalities differ from one another in multiple attributes (e.g., realism, availability). The purpose of this study was to compare capabilities across simulation modalities for combat casualty care from the perspective of experienced military medics.

Materials And Methods: To provide a more complete understanding of the relative merits and limitations of modalities, military combat medics (N = 33) were surveyed on the capabilities of simulation modalities during a 5-day technical experimentation event where they observed medical simulations from industry developers. The survey asked them to rate each of eleven modalities on each of seven attributes. To elicit additional context for the strengths, limitations, and unique considerations of using each modality, we also collected open-ended comments to provide further insight on when and how to use specific simulation modalities.

Results: Results showed differences among the simulation modalities by attribute. Cadavers, role play, moulage, and live tissue all received high ratings on two or more attributes. However, there was no modality that was rated uniformly superior to the others. Instead, modalities appear to have unique strengths and limitations depending on the training context and objectives. For example, cadavers were seen as highly realistic, but not very reusable.

Conclusions: The study furthers our understanding of simulation modalities for medical training by providing insight from combat medics on the benefits, limitations, and considerations for implementing different modalities depending on the training context. These results may be helpful to instructors in selecting modalities for their programs.