目的 了解创伤救治培训现状和“中国创伤救治高级培训课程”(简称培训课程)的培训效果,分析学员培训成绩的影响因素。 方法 对2024年1月至2025年1月参加培训课程的学员846人进行问卷调查,并对调查结果进行描述性统计学分析和多元线性回归分析。 结果 ①回收有效问卷631份,学员所在科室以急诊[220人(34.87%)]和骨科[145人(22.98%)]为主;从事创伤救治的年限主要为5年以上[424人(67.19%)];既往创伤救治培训主要为定期科室内部学习[495人(78.45%)],医院组织的病例讨论和培训[470人(74.48%)],创伤救治培训课程或培训班[401人(63.55%)]。②超过半数的学员所在医院床位数>1 000张[327人(51.82%)];所在医院创伤救治模式主要为急诊科+多学科会诊+外科治疗[406人(64.34%)],少数为独立创伤中心模式[81人(12.84%)]。③培训后学员的创伤救治成绩明显高于培训前[(74.95±10.41)分比(60.59±11.95)分,P<0.001]。④培训前学员创伤救治成绩的独立影响因素包括所在科室为急诊和ICU(β=3.267,P=0.001)、从事创伤救治的年限>2年(β=2.909,P=0.018)、所在医院床位数>1 000张(β=3.028,P=0.001)和既往参加医院组织的病例讨论和培训(β=2.997,P=0.005);培训后成绩的独立影响因素包括所在医院床位数>1 000张(β=3.858,P<0.001)和既往参加定期科室内部学习(β=3.130,P=0.002)。⑤学员对中国创伤救治高级培训课程有很高的总体满意度[629人(99.68%)]。 结论 参加培训课程的学员多为创伤救治相关学科和科室核心骨干。培训课程能够有效提高学员的创伤救治培训成绩,既往参加过不同层次的创伤救治培训学员培训成绩更优,绝大多数学员对培训课程满意。
Objective To investigate the current status of trauma care training in China and assess the effectiveness of the China Advanced Trauma Care Training Course (hereinafter referred to as the training course), with analysis of factors influencing trainees′ performance. Methods A questionnaire survey was conducted among 846 trainees who participated in the training course between January 2024 and January 2025, and the results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analysis. Results (1) The main departments of the trainees were the emergency department [220 (34.87%)] and the orthopedic department [145 (22.98%)]. It was found that 424 (67.19%) trainees had been engaged in trauma care for more than 5 years, 495 (78.45%) reported regular internal departmental study, 470 (74.48%) had participated in case discussions and training organized by their hospitals, and 401 (63.55%) had previously attended trauma care training courses. (2) More than half of the trainees were from hospitals with over 1 000 beds [327 (51.82%)]. The primary trauma care model in their hospitals was the emergency department + multidisciplinary consultation + surgical treatment approach [406 (64.34%)], while a minority were from independent trauma centers [81 (12.84%)]. (3) Post-training scores were significantly higher than pre-training scores [(74.95±10.41) vs. (60.59±11.95), P<0.001]. (4) Independent influencing factors for pre-training scores included in the department of emergency and ICU (β=3.267, P=0.001), more than 2 years of engagement in trauma care (β=2.909, P=0.018), hospital bed capacity exceeding 1 000 (β=3.028, P=0.001), and prior participation in hospital-organized case discussions and training (β=2.997, P=0.005). For post-training scores, independent influencing factors included hospital bed capacity exceeding 1 000 (β=3.858, P<0.001) and prior participation in regular in-department learning (β=3.130, P=0.002). (5) Overall satisfaction with the Advanced Trauma Care Training Course was high [629 (99.68%)]. Conclusions The majority of trainees in the training course were core clinical staff of trauma care related disciplines and departments. The training course can effectively improve the trainees′ scores in trauma care training, especially those who have participated in various levels of trauma training in the past. The vast majority of trainees expressed satisfaction with the training course.
[1] Zhou M, Wang H, Zeng X, et al. Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017[J]. Lancet, 2019,394(10204):1145-1158. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30427-1.
[2] Moore L, Champion H, Tardif PA, etal. Impact of trauma system structure on injury outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. World J Surg, 2018,42(5):1327-1339. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-017-4292-0.
[3] Wang T, Yin X, Zhang P, et al. Road traffic injury and rescue system in China[J]. Lancet, 2015,385(9978):1622. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60794-2.
[4] Jiang B, Liang S, Peng ZR, et al. Transport and public health in China: the road to a healthy future[J]. Lancet, 2017,390(10104):1781-1791. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31958-X.
[5] Zhou J, Wang T, Belenkiy I, et al. Management of severe trauma worldwide: implementation of trauma systems in emerging countries: China, Russia and South Africa[J]. Crit Care, 2021,25(1):286. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03681-8.
[6] 朱莉, 徐英, 陈燕昀, 等. 上海市创伤救治医师规范培训现状调查[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2020,22(11):983-988. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20200529-00352.
[7] 杜哲, 黄伟, 王志伟, 等. 多学科协作诊疗模式在严重创伤患者救治中的应用[J].北京大学学报(医学版),2020,52(2):298-301. DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.02.017.
[8] Zhong XM, Wen XH, Ji CH, et al. A temporary-sustainable team: a new multidisciplinary team model for severe trauma[J]. Chin J Traumatol, 2020,23(6):363-366. DOI: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2020.09.007.
[9] 周靖, 王天兵, 姜保国. 中国创伤救治体系的现状与发展[J].中华外科杂志,2022,60(12):1045-1048. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20220429-00192.
[10] Zong ZW, Li N, Cheng TM, et al. Current state and future perspectives of trauma care system in mainland China[J]. Injury, 2011,42(9):874-878. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.09.034.
[11] Navarro S, Montmany S, Rebasa P, et al. Impact of ATLS training on preventableand potentially preventable deaths[J]. World J Surg, 2014,38(9):2273-2278. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2587-y.
[12] AlQorashi S, Kabli A, Alwithenani SI, et al. The effectiveness of the international trauma life support (ITLS) course on multidisciplinary healthcare providers[J]. Cureus, 2025,17(1):e77886. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.77886.
[13] 许永安,张茂,赵小纲,等. 中国创伤救治培训课程培训效果评价[J]. 中华创伤杂志,2019,35(12):1130-1137. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-8050.2019.12.013.
[14] 许永安,张茂,赵小纲,等. 基于中国创伤救治培训(主任版)首期学员的创伤救治现状调查[J]. 创伤外科杂志,2020,22(2):87-93. DOI: 10.3969j.issn.1009-4237.2020.02.002.
[15] Aldarsouni FG, Alkhulaiwi H, Alruwaite H, et al. Advanced trauma life support training outcomes in Saudi Arabia: a four-year multicenter analysis of influential characteristics and factors (2019-2023)[J]. Ann Saudi Med, 2024,44(6):394-407. DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2024.394.
