Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS): necessary for emergency physicians?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A survey was conducted to determine differences in perspective towards Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) between emergency medicine (EM) physicians and other specialties (OS), assess its value in the management of acute trauma, and identify areas in the course which could be revised or updated. The survey was devised and completed by physicians after ATLS. Of 26 course participants, there were 11 EM physicians (42%), four family practitioners (15%), four surgeons (15%), four internists (15%), two paediatricians (8%), and one anaesthesiologist (4%). Both groups found ATLS useful and relevant, and reported little deviation from their prior management of acute trauma. Unclear topics identified were airway, spine trauma, and burns/cold injury for EM, and head, abdominal, and paediatric trauma for OS. Significant differences were noted for the following: 91% EM vs. 13% OS felt ATLS could be shortened into a one-day course (p = 0.002), 64% EM vs. 7% OS thought the laboratory could be omitted (p = 0.003), and all (100%) EM vs. 60% OS believed the course could be taught by EM physicians as effectively as surgeons (p = 0.02). EM disagreed with OS over the proposed requirement that all EM physicians be required to take ATLS (2.0 +/- 0.2 vs. 3.5 +/- 0.4, p = 0.03). The EM group reported doing > 20 per year of airway, vascular, and thoracostomy procedures in their own practice, whereas OS did significantly fewer. ATLS may not be useful for EM practitioners actively involved in trauma care. Proposed changes from the EM perspective include shortening ATLS to one day, increased use of EM instructors, clarifying certain portions of the manual, and omitting the laboratory section or making it optional.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)207-210
Number of pages4
JournalEuropean journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine
Volume7
Issue number3
StatePublished - Sep 2000

Fingerprint

Advanced Trauma Life Support Care
Emergency Medicine
Emergencies
Physicians
Wounds and Injuries
Thoracostomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

@article{7514260fc13c4de98be7cfe4e965a109,
title = "Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS): necessary for emergency physicians?",
abstract = "A survey was conducted to determine differences in perspective towards Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) between emergency medicine (EM) physicians and other specialties (OS), assess its value in the management of acute trauma, and identify areas in the course which could be revised or updated. The survey was devised and completed by physicians after ATLS. Of 26 course participants, there were 11 EM physicians (42{\%}), four family practitioners (15{\%}), four surgeons (15{\%}), four internists (15{\%}), two paediatricians (8{\%}), and one anaesthesiologist (4{\%}). Both groups found ATLS useful and relevant, and reported little deviation from their prior management of acute trauma. Unclear topics identified were airway, spine trauma, and burns/cold injury for EM, and head, abdominal, and paediatric trauma for OS. Significant differences were noted for the following: 91{\%} EM vs. 13{\%} OS felt ATLS could be shortened into a one-day course (p = 0.002), 64{\%} EM vs. 7{\%} OS thought the laboratory could be omitted (p = 0.003), and all (100{\%}) EM vs. 60{\%} OS believed the course could be taught by EM physicians as effectively as surgeons (p = 0.02). EM disagreed with OS over the proposed requirement that all EM physicians be required to take ATLS (2.0 +/- 0.2 vs. 3.5 +/- 0.4, p = 0.03). The EM group reported doing > 20 per year of airway, vascular, and thoracostomy procedures in their own practice, whereas OS did significantly fewer. ATLS may not be useful for EM practitioners actively involved in trauma care. Proposed changes from the EM perspective include shortening ATLS to one day, increased use of EM instructors, clarifying certain portions of the manual, and omitting the laboratory section or making it optional.",
author = "Richards, {John R} and Panacek, {Edward A} and Brofeldt, {B. T.}",
year = "2000",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "207--210",
journal = "European Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0969-9546",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS)

T2 - necessary for emergency physicians?

AU - Richards, John R

AU - Panacek, Edward A

AU - Brofeldt, B. T.

PY - 2000/9

Y1 - 2000/9

N2 - A survey was conducted to determine differences in perspective towards Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) between emergency medicine (EM) physicians and other specialties (OS), assess its value in the management of acute trauma, and identify areas in the course which could be revised or updated. The survey was devised and completed by physicians after ATLS. Of 26 course participants, there were 11 EM physicians (42%), four family practitioners (15%), four surgeons (15%), four internists (15%), two paediatricians (8%), and one anaesthesiologist (4%). Both groups found ATLS useful and relevant, and reported little deviation from their prior management of acute trauma. Unclear topics identified were airway, spine trauma, and burns/cold injury for EM, and head, abdominal, and paediatric trauma for OS. Significant differences were noted for the following: 91% EM vs. 13% OS felt ATLS could be shortened into a one-day course (p = 0.002), 64% EM vs. 7% OS thought the laboratory could be omitted (p = 0.003), and all (100%) EM vs. 60% OS believed the course could be taught by EM physicians as effectively as surgeons (p = 0.02). EM disagreed with OS over the proposed requirement that all EM physicians be required to take ATLS (2.0 +/- 0.2 vs. 3.5 +/- 0.4, p = 0.03). The EM group reported doing > 20 per year of airway, vascular, and thoracostomy procedures in their own practice, whereas OS did significantly fewer. ATLS may not be useful for EM practitioners actively involved in trauma care. Proposed changes from the EM perspective include shortening ATLS to one day, increased use of EM instructors, clarifying certain portions of the manual, and omitting the laboratory section or making it optional.

AB - A survey was conducted to determine differences in perspective towards Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) between emergency medicine (EM) physicians and other specialties (OS), assess its value in the management of acute trauma, and identify areas in the course which could be revised or updated. The survey was devised and completed by physicians after ATLS. Of 26 course participants, there were 11 EM physicians (42%), four family practitioners (15%), four surgeons (15%), four internists (15%), two paediatricians (8%), and one anaesthesiologist (4%). Both groups found ATLS useful and relevant, and reported little deviation from their prior management of acute trauma. Unclear topics identified were airway, spine trauma, and burns/cold injury for EM, and head, abdominal, and paediatric trauma for OS. Significant differences were noted for the following: 91% EM vs. 13% OS felt ATLS could be shortened into a one-day course (p = 0.002), 64% EM vs. 7% OS thought the laboratory could be omitted (p = 0.003), and all (100%) EM vs. 60% OS believed the course could be taught by EM physicians as effectively as surgeons (p = 0.02). EM disagreed with OS over the proposed requirement that all EM physicians be required to take ATLS (2.0 +/- 0.2 vs. 3.5 +/- 0.4, p = 0.03). The EM group reported doing > 20 per year of airway, vascular, and thoracostomy procedures in their own practice, whereas OS did significantly fewer. ATLS may not be useful for EM practitioners actively involved in trauma care. Proposed changes from the EM perspective include shortening ATLS to one day, increased use of EM instructors, clarifying certain portions of the manual, and omitting the laboratory section or making it optional.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034276864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034276864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11142273

AN - SCOPUS:0034276864

VL - 7

SP - 207

EP - 210

JO - European Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - European Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0969-9546

IS - 3

ER -