Speed, Skill Retention, and End User Perceptions of iTClamp Application by Navy Corpsmen on a Manikin Model of Femoral Hemorrhage.

INTRODUCTION: Tactical Combat Casualty Care guidelines recommend packing junctional wounds with gauze, applying direct pressure for 3 minutes, and then securing with an external pressure dressing. This method is time-consuming, which can be problematic in a combat environment. Alternatively, the iTClamp has documented efficacy and rapid application. However, no studies have evaluated device application by military prehospital medical providers, such as Navy corpsmen, or their user experience with the device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Research data derived from a protocol were approved by the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth's Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects. Navy corpsmen with the current Tactical Combat Casualty Care certification applied the iTClamp or standard pressure dressing on a manikin model of femoral hemorrhage in a crossover study design. Each participant used both devices in a randomized fashion. Time to application was recorded, and participants completed Likert scale surveys to evaluate both devices for preference, ease of use, and physical assessment. A repeat assessment was performed 1 month later to assess skill atrophy. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare application time. Likert scale survey data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests to compare survey data within and between time points, respectively.

RESULTS: The application of the iTClamp was more than twice as fast as the application of pressure dressings at both the initial and follow-up evaluations. There was no statistically significant difference in application times between the first evaluation and the 30-day assessment of either device, indicating no atrophy in skill. While 65% and 52% of the participants expressed preference in for the iTClamp in their surveys during the initial and follow-up respective visits, the difference in preference was not statistically significant for either the initial or the follow-up survey. Open-ended survey responses yielded both perceived advantages and disadvantages for each treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS: In austere or hostile environments, speed of treatment and extrication can have significant implications for the safety of both the patient and the medical providers. Hemorrhage control interventions must be both effective and easy to use for a prehospital provider to ensure its efficacy in a live battlefield situation. The iTClamp is small, simple, and fast to use, but its wide adoption in the field may be based on limitations perceived by participants, including narrow indications for use. However, based on our findings, it is reasonable to field the iTClamp depending on provider preference.