We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the standard measure used to quantify the level of consciousness of patients who have sustained head injuries. Rapid and accurate GCS scoring is essential.
Objective:
To evaluate the effectiveness of a GCS teaching video shown to prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) providers.
Methods:
Participants and setting—United States, Mid-Atlantic region EMS providers. Intervention—Each participant scored all of the three components of the GCS for each of four scenarios provided before and after viewing a video-tape recording containing four scenarios. Design—Before-and-after single (Phase I) and parallel Cohort (Phase II). Analysis— Proportions of correct scores were compared using chi-square, and relative risk was calculated to measure the strength of the association.
Results:
75 participants were included in Phase I. In Phase II, 46 participants participated in a parallel cohort design: 20 used GCS reference cards and 26 did not use the cards. Before observing the instructional video, only 14.7% score all of the scenarios correctly, where as after viewing the video, 64.0% scored the scenarios results were observed after viewing the video for those who used the GCS cards (p = 0.001; RR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.29 to 3.10) than for those not using the cards (p <0.0001; RR = 10.0; 95% CI = 2.60 to 38.50).
Conclusions:
Post-video viewing scores were better than those observed before the video presentation. Ongoing evaluations include analysis of longterm skill retention and scoring accuracy in the clinical environment.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.