PDA

View Full Version : Training Medics (Ft. Bragg)


swatsurgeon
01-16-2013, 10:29
"Thousands of goats per year will be spared now that lawmakers have passed a law ending the killing of goats for Army medical training.
For years, Fort Bragg has shot, blown up and otherwise killed some 300 goats per month to train Army medics for treating wounded soldiers, according to the Fayetteville Observer. Documents show Fort Bragg's Army Special Operations Command requested up to 3,600 goats last year. Animal activists claim the goats are shot, stabbed, bludgeoned and blown up to simulate the types of injuries those in combat face, according to the newspaper.
But the new law appears to be the end of the practice, which angered animal rights activists. Instead, medics may train on humans wearing "organ suits," which have simulated human organs, breakable synthetic bones and even bloodlike fluid.
The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act requires the Department of Defense to provide plans by March to replace animals that are currently used for medical training, The Fayetteville Observer reported.
Officials with the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School and Army Special Operations Command wouldn't tell the newspaper how they plan to replace animals or say how many are killed during training."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/15/fort-bragg-to-stop-using-goats-in-medical-training/#ixzz2I9m6yXlf

This is going to impact the education of battle ready medics. Simulation, which is a great adjunct to educating medical providers can only do so much to prepare you for live tissue injury. Hopefully the DoD can find a 'quiet' alternative.

Stay tuned....this is a significant hurt to their education and readiness preparation for advanced medical care....IMHO

ss

Oldrotorhead
01-16-2013, 14:05
I have a question. I have been told by a MD (former SF but not a medic) that if the goat dies the Medic fails. I don't think this is correct but have no information either way. Is this a fact? I have sone a web search but found no answer.

Surgicalcric
01-16-2013, 14:16
I have a question. I have been told by a MD (former SF but not a medic) that if the goat dies the Medic fails. I don't think this is correct but have no information either way. Is this a fact? I have sone a web search but found no answer.

Depends if the medic's in/actions led to the patient's demise.

Doc Diego
01-16-2013, 14:26
As a former instructor at MedLab, if your goat died because of something you did or failed to do, you were a "no go". Depending on the circumstances, a student could be recycled or reclassified.

Oldrotorhead
01-16-2013, 14:31
Thank you both for your response.

Red Flag 1
01-16-2013, 20:05
We used them for training in USAFE in the early '80s. It was a great learning tool. The other animal model we used were cats. They were a perfect model for intubation of children. All the cats survived, and they ( all animal models ) were tended to by the base Vets. I think we only lost one of the goat/sheep models in the three years I was there.

RF 1

Kyobanim
01-16-2013, 20:07
Maybe you could use PETA members instead. Just sayin. . .

MR2
01-16-2013, 20:11
Maybe you could use PETA members instead. Just sayin. . .

Too scrawny...

NurseTim
01-16-2013, 20:24
PETA members are scrawny and fragile. Not really a good approximation of a human.

11Ber
01-16-2013, 20:25
Too scrawny...
Plus the mounting to establish dominance, as seen in male caprines, could turn into a pleasurable experience for the male PETA types. Oh wait, that's cool in the Army now too....

Eagle5US
01-16-2013, 21:27
Read the ALARACT day before yesterday...much of the article is a sensationalized wash. The requirements aren't "exactly" as spelled out in the article (big surprise) - but it mandates a report to Congress this year on "potential alternatives in the years ahead", with a "plan for phasing in alternate technology by 2017".

There are many different POV's WRT the article's characterization of utilizing non human patient models. Simulators are good for some things, living breathing models are better for others.
The anatomy of a patient model is (obviously) no where near that of a human or human simulator, but neither are the physiologic responses, the temp / textures / consistencies of tissue / nerve stimulation etc of a simulator those of a living patient model.

Some issues we have had with our new 18D's when taking them to a cadaver lab is that they really DON'T KNOW what / where / how to actually "do" procedures on a human because they have exclusively done them on a non-human patient model. So, in that regard, a human simulator or cadaver adjunct then becomes a significant positive.
There is, however, a tremendous LACK of urgency it seems when they are dealing with simulators due to the video game mentality - "oh well, if he dies we can just start over"-

The military is fast transitioning from a fighting force compelled to defend the Nation and provide the best to it's troops into something that is damn near unrecognizable to those of us who have earned our grey hair while serving.

And yes, RASCON (here at Campbell) uses simulators but it is for TCCC and CLS as well as pre-deployment unit training for units that would otherwise not be authorized use of patient models anyway.

Besides - why is Pippin a CARDIOLOGIST - leading the charge against trauma medicine? The argument that "medical schools have transitioned to simulators" is apples to oranges because guess what - doctors work on LIVING BREATHING PATIENTS throughout their intern and residency years. Our soldier medical education programs do not have the convenience of that extended patient experience.

FMF DOC
01-17-2013, 12:45
Did some Training in Virginia and we used live pigs.

Flagg
01-17-2013, 16:55
First post in this subforum.

Eagle Edit

That's disappointing to here.

Personally, I feel I've received some good quality basic medical training and while I haven't had to treat anyone in combat, I have been first responder on a number of occasions.

I have to admit that what scared me FAR more than jumping out of airplanes(especially for the first time) and dealing with a few naughty armed people, was dealing with a motorcycle accident victim with a tension pneumothorax.

Real live patients are a lot different than the training simulators I've used.

Without having the opportunity for live tissue training, I think I got a tiny slice of why it's probably so important.

MtnGoat
01-18-2013, 06:00
Read the ALARACT day before yesterday...much of the article is a sensationalized wash. The requirements aren't "exactly" as spelled out in the article (big surprise) - but it mandates a report to Congress this year on "potential alternatives in the years ahead", with a "plan for phasing in alternate technology by 2017".

There are many different POV's WRT the article's characterization of utilizing non human patient models. Simulators are good for some things, living breathing models are better for others.
The anatomy of a patient model is (obviously) no where near that of a human or human simulator, but neither are the physiologic responses, the temp / textures / consistencies of tissue / nerve stimulation etc of a simulator those of a living patient model.

Some issues we have had with our new 18D's when taking them to a cadaver lab is that they really DON'T KNOW what / where / how to actually "do" procedures on a human because they have exclusively done them on a non-human patient model. So, in that regard, a human simulator or cadaver adjunct then becomes a significant positive.
There is, however, a tremendous LACK of urgency it seems when they are dealing with simulators due to the video game mentality - "oh well, if he dies we can just start over"-

The military is fast transitioning from a fighting force compelled to defend the Nation and provide the best to it's troops into something that is damn near unrecognizable to those of us who have earned our grey hair while serving.

And yes, RASCON (here at Campbell) uses simulators but it is for TCCC and CLS as well as pre-deployment unit training for units that would otherwise not be authorized use of patient models anyway.

Besides - why is Pippin a CARDIOLOGIST - leading the charge against trauma medicine? The argument that "medical schools have transitioned to simulators" is apples to oranges because guess what - doctors work on LIVING BREATHING PATIENTS throughout their intern and residency years. Our soldier medical education programs do not have the convenience of that extended patient experience.

82nd has a medical training center that has patient simulators, and IMO they suck!!! We tried to use them three times, and with different models, and they all take long to respond to what the medics imputs into the computer. They may give some "good" patient simulations, but nothing close to a goat or pig. I guess they are good for "regular" units, but when we are out of touch with MEDEVACs and out on our own, they don't justice.

Just my .02

Jgood
01-18-2013, 15:07
LTT some of the best training I have had, very sad day when and if this training gets taken away.

Red Flag 1
01-18-2013, 18:10
Maybe you could use PETA members instead. Just sayin. . .

Very poor training model. When they bleed, it looks more like urine than blood. Smells bad too :D

RF 1

medic&commo
01-19-2013, 11:16
Originally Posted by Kyobanim
Maybe you could use PETA members instead. Just sayin. . .

Most have agreed that PETA members would be a poor choice for one reason or another.
But I suggest they would be the perfect specimen:
1. Reduce the PETA population
2. Because of being scrawny, malnurished and frail - if you can stick them & keep them alive...
3. They are like more like caprines than you might think - remember defecating in others wounds, eating the wound dressings...

And as in my class, maybe there will be an outbreak of Anthrax wiping out the herd, and we'll have to repopulate. To be so lucky!
m&c

medic&commo
01-19-2013, 12:16
ICYMI -
"I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers". -Unknown

chester
01-19-2013, 15:25
Here is the actual bill. I'm not a lawyer but to me it sounds like this will not end life tissue training as it is written. The "when appropriate" in paragraph (1) is encouraging.


SEC. 736. REPORT ON STRATEGY TO TRANSITION TO USE OF HUMANBASED
METHODS FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL TRAINING.
(a) REPORT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 1, 2013, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report that outlines a strategy, including a
detailed timeline, to refine and, when appropriate, transition
to using human-based training methods for the purpose of
training members of the Armed Forces in the treatment of
combat trauma injuries.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The report under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) Required research, development, testing, and
evaluation investments to validate human-based training methods to refine, reduce, and, when appropriate, transition
from the use of live animals in medical education
and training.
(B) Phased sustainment and readiness costs to refine,
reduce, and, when appropriate, replace the use of live animals
in medical education and training.
(C) Any risks associated with transitioning to humanbased
training methods, including resource availability,
anticipated technological development timelines, and potential
impact on the present combat trauma training curricula.
(D) An assessment of the potential effect of
transitioning to human-based training methods on the
quality of medical care delivered on the battlefield,
including any reduction in the competency of combat medical
personnel.
(E) An assessment of risks to maintaining the level
of combat life-saver techniques performed by all members
of the Armed Forces.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) The term ‘‘combat trauma injuries’’ means severe
injuries likely to occur during combat, including—
(A) extremity hemorrhage;
(B) tension pneumothorax;
(C) amputation resulting from blast injury;
(D) compromises to the airway; and
(E) other injuries.
(2) The term ‘‘human-based training methods’’ means, with
respect to training individuals in medical treatment, the use
of systems and devices that do not use animals, including—
(A) simulators;
(B) partial task trainers;
(C) moulage;
(D) simulated combat environments; and
(E) human cadavers.
(3) The term ‘‘partial task trainers’’ means training aids
that allow individuals to learn or practice specific medical procedures

Eagle5US
01-19-2013, 15:34
Here is the actual bill. I'm not a lawyer but to me it sounds like this will not end life tissue training as it is written. The "when appropriate" in paragraph (1) is encouraging.

As I wrote in my post some time ago-:rolleyes:

Tamaya
01-19-2013, 19:33
We used goats in 1977 in AMEDDS for aviators training at Ft Sam Houston, TX. Practiced procedures like cricoid thyrotomy, venous cutdown, insert lung tubes, debridement of wounds, etc. The training was amazing and the life saving techniques invaluable. Hard to believe they would abort this type of training to save goats rather than educating soldiers to save humans.

Whiplash
01-21-2013, 23:48
I highly doubt that the army will stop this training it is far too beneficial for us medics to not have. NO ONE would want a medic working on them who has only validated his skill on training dummies. But the only way PETA and other organizations find out about some of the training we do is because people run their damn mouths

spottedmedic111
06-04-2014, 10:05
As I recall, the animals purchased for our training were destined for slaughter anyway due to their advanced (2-3 years) age making their wool too coarse to harvest for clothing. We got them malnourished, infested, and miserable. We pampered them for 30 days with regular grooming, check-ups, and twice daily feedings. OK, they got fingers in their butts but I think some of them enjoyed it! In the end they feel a needle as they're anesthetized...that's it. They're not aware of the rest of it. From the goat's perspective, they get it pretty darned good given the alternative. In exchange, Soldiers get treated by the highest quality medics on Earth.