PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Training of clinical triage of acute radiation casualties: A performance comparison of on-site versus online training due to the covid-19 pandemic.

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Lamkowski, A.* ; Combs, S.E. ; Abend, M.* ; Port, M.*

Training of clinical triage of acute radiation casualties: A performance comparison of on-site versus online training due to the covid-19 pandemic.

J. Radiol. Prot. 41, S540-S560 (2021)

DOI

Open Access Green as soon as Postprint is submitted to ZB.

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

A collection of powerful diagnostic tools have been developed under the umbrellas of NATO for ionising radiation dose assessment (BAT, WinFRAT) and estimate of acute health effects in humans (WinFRAT, H-Module). We assembled a database of 191 ARS cases using the medical treatment protocols for radiation accident victims (n = 167) and the system for evaluation and archiving of radiation accidents based on case histories (n = 24) for training purposes of medical personnel. From 2016 to 2019, we trained 39 participants comprising MSc level radiobiology students in an on-site teaching class. Enforced by the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 for the first time, an online teaching of nine MSc radiobiology students replaced the on-site teaching. We found that: (a) limitations of correct diagnostic decision-making based on clinical signs and symptoms were experienced unrelated to the teaching format. (b) A significant performance decrease concerning online (first number in parenthesis) versus on-site teaching (reference and second number in parenthesis) was seen regarding the estimate time (31 vs 61 cases per hour, two-fold decrease, p = 0.005). Also, the accurate assessment of response categories (89.9% vs 96.9%, p = 0.001), ARS (92.4% vs 96.7%, p = 0.002) and hospitalisation (93.5% vs 97.0%, p = 0.002) decreased by around 3%-7%. The performances of the online attendees were mainly distributed within the lower quartile performance of on-site participants and the 25%-75% interquartile range increased 3-7-fold. (c) Comparison of dose estimates performed by training participants with hematologic acute radiation syndrome (HARS) severity mirrored the known limitations of dose alone as a surrogate parameter for HARS severity at doses less than 1.5 Gy, but demonstrated correct determination of HARS 2-4 and support for clinical decision making at dose estimates >1.5 Gy, regardless of teaching format. (d) Overall, one-third of the online participants showed substantial misapprehension and insecurities of elementary course content that did not occur after the on-site teaching.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

1.394

1.007