Combat casualty care training – special forces need special approach
Treatment of wounded or injured operators on special forces missions has always involved unique factors, such as the need to remain covert, or a lack of rapid access to higher-level medical facilities. A recent study has examined how available simulators can best be evaluated to find out which is the most effective for training SOF personnel for these frontline scenarios.
The tactical combat casualty care (TCCC) training needs of special forces were explored in a 6 June webinar hosted by the NTSA. Primary presenter was researcher Shannon Bailey, PhD, of USF Health’s Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation, who outlined and updated a paper presented at I/ITSEC 2023... Continues below
Newsletter Sponsors:
Above: Realism is essential for tactical combat casualty care training for special forces, but there are a large number of ways in which this can be achieved, ranging from traditional to high-tech. (Photo: Special Operations Command Africa)
After recognising the critical team effort behind the work, Bailey explained: ‘SOCOM had a research question, which was that they wanted to be able to compare different medical trauma simulators for combat casualty care training, and they wanted a more objective way of comparing different simulations across the wide variety of simulation types that exist.’
The study covered 12 specific TCCC tasks: chest tube; cricothyroidotomy (open surgical); extraglottic airway; head-tilt/chin-lift; jaw-thrust maneuver; nasopharyngeal airway insertion; needle chest decompression; recovery position; tactical trauma assessment; tourniquet care under fire; tourniquet tactical field care; and wound packing and pressure bandage.
MVRsimulation’s VRSG: bringing military simulation training to life.
During a weeklong event, 33 experienced military medics evaluated 27 medical simulations presented by industry vendors using a matrix developed for the trial.
Bailey outlined some of the simulation options available, including manikins, part-task trainers, augmented or virtual reality, computer-based simulations, cadavers and live animals, describing how each modality provides both benefits and limitations.
‘No modality was considered uniformly superior,’ she said. ‘All the modalities had trade-offs. We found that context ended up being very important, and the intended learning outcomes, to determine what the appropriate simulation was.’
She said the team had published additional data since I/ITSEC 2023, ‘looking more into the perspectives of the combat medic’, and the study will inform future USSOCOM acquisition procedures.
Perhaps most importantly. this work underlines the need for a systematic methodology when looking to select training equipment for a complex task, and the sheer range of options considered (including some that readers may find surprising) indicates the potentially (very) different shapes such training might take. The value of providing a firm framework for evaluating these different modalities fairly and comprehensively clearly emerges.
Asked about the possible limitations for medical training applications of XR technologies, Bailey pointed to huge advances in this field over the last decade but cautioned that one area that still needs work involves modelling haptics for ‘soft’ objects.
Other articles in this newsletter:
A complex enterprise – shaping the future of US Marine Corps training
Reality check – how the US Army is learning training lessons from current conflicts
Don't want to miss out on future Decisive Edge content? Make sure you are signed up to our email newsletters.
