Objectives: To compare the efficacy of the new self-inflatable Quick Rescue (QR) flotation device to conventional tube and buoy devices. To compare lifeguard fatigue after rescues with different flotation devices.
Material and methods: Forty lifeguards participated in this quasi-experimental field study. Each performed simulated rescues of sea swimmers in distress under 4 conditions (no device, the QR device, a tube, and a buoy) assigned in random order. The swimmer in distress was located at a distance of 100 m. Ambient conditions, victim type, and beach were standardized. Participants underwent training to use the inflatable QR float and all other devices. Expertise was defined as a score of at least 3 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. We recorded rescue times (total, and approaching, securing and towing back the distressed swimmer) as well as the lifeguards' perceptions of effort (overall and for each stage).
Results: Most rescue times did not differ between conditions, with the exception of time needed to secure the victim, which was shorter by 3 seconds when no device was used (P<.05). The rescuers did not perceive differences between devices in overall effort or effort during any of the phases.
Conclusion: The new self-inflating QR device is as useful as other flotation devices in terms of rescue times and effort expended by lifeguards. We can therefore recommend its use for rescuing sea swimmers in distress.
Objetivo: El Quick Rescue es un nuevo dispositivo flotante de rescate (DFR) autoinflable. Se compara su eficacia frente al tubo y la boya de rescate ante una víctima con distrés en el mar, y la fatiga del socorrista tras los rescates con los distintos DFR.
Metodo: Estudio cuasiexperimental con aleatorización de condiciones (sin DFR, con tubo de rescate, con boya de rescate y con Quick Rescue). Cada participante realizó cuatro rescates de víctima con distrés a 100 m en el mar, con estandarización de las condiciones ambientales, tipo de víctima y playa. Se registró el tiempo de rescate (total, aproximación, control de víctima y remolque) y la percepción del esfuerzo (total y segmentaria) de los socorristas.
Resultados: En general, no hubo diferencias entre las cuatro condiciones en los tiempos de rescate. A excepción del tiempo de control de la víctima, que sin material fue en torno a 3 segundos inferior que en las tres condiciones con DFR (p < 0,05). No hubo diferencias en la percepción del esfuerzo total ni segmentaria entre condiciones.
Conclusiones: El DFR autoinflable Quick Rescue presenta una validez similar a los DFR habituales en relación a los tiempos de rescate y la fatiga. Por lo tanto, recomendamos su uso para víctimas distrés en el mar.
Keywords: Ahogamiento; Código abierto; Drowning; Emergency responders; Guardavidas; Lifeguards; Open source; Personal de emergencias; Rescate; Rescue; Socorrista.