Although the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course is now taught internationally, it has not been implemented in Korea. In recent years, interest has increased in simulation as a teaching tool in the ATLS course. We therefore hypothesized that simulation training would be a useful adjunct to the ATLS course.

We designed a 1-day curriculum that included skill development workstations, expert lectures, trauma patient simulations, and group discussion for general surgery residents. We conducted a survey to evaluate participants’ level of understanding of the initial evaluation and treatment of trauma patients, their degree of knowledge and technical improvement, their satisfaction with the learning goals, and their overall satisfaction with the curriculum. We then analyzed the effects before and after the training.

Nine residents attended this course. None of the residents initially reported that they could perform a primary survey of trauma patients. The analysis revealed significant improvements after training in the questionnaire areas of “assembly of the team and preparation for resuscitation of a trauma patient” (p=0.008), “performance of a primary survey for trauma patients” (p=0.007), “resuscitative procedures for trauma patients” (p=0.008), “importance of re-evaluation” (p=0.007), “identifying the pitfalls associated with the initial assessment and management” (p=0.007), and “importance of teamwork” (p=0.007).

After the ATLS simulation training, all participants showed significant improvements in their understanding of how to manage multiple trauma patients. Therefore, ATLS simulation training for residents will help in the management of trauma patients.

This study was conducted to status and needs for continuing education for trauma hospital nurses in Korea.

Thirty nurses from the seven level I trauma center hospitals or trauma treatment systems were randomly selected and surveyed. The survey was conducted from March 1 to May 31, 2017. Categorical data were analyzed with Pearson chi-square tests and Continuous variables were analyzed with ANOVA.

Only 86 out of 204 nurses had received continuing education (42.1%). The current status of continuing education programs, delivering institution (p<0.001), education method (p<0.001), education period (p=0.003), number of participants (p=0.007), and instructors (p=0.014) were also significantly different from trauma center to trauma center. There were 108 (52.9%) nurses who responded that continuing education programs were “needed” 92 (45.1%) and “very much needed 16 (7.8%). According to each trauma center’s characteristics were significantly differences in the need for continuing education (p=0.089), subject selection method (p<0.001) and the number of continuing education sessions (p=0.043) depending on the hospital.

It is necessary to consider differences between the hospitals to develop continuing education programs that reflect the needs of nurses, in order to improve the efficiency of and satisfaction with the educational programs.