Page 63 - JSOM Fall 2025

significant differences. Categorical variables (fill category, Correct Fills (within ±10% of the target weight)
three-alternative forced choice) were analyzed using binomial
and chi square-goodness-of-fit statistics. Qualitative data were FIGURE 6 Bag fill weight for experts.
scored using thematic analysis. Differences were considered
statistically significant at the P<.05 threshold. Analyses were
conducted in SPSS statistical software (version 23, IBM Inc.,
Chicago, IL).

Results
Participant Descriptives
Of the 65 novices who completed BC, PC, and OG techniques,
80% were Corpsmen, 15% physicians, 3% independent duty
Corpsmen, and 2% Marines. Novices averaged 46 months of
healthcare training (range 0–144), .5 deployments (range 0–3),
and .05 combat deployments (range 0–2). Overall, 80% had
no previous experience providing blood transfusions. While *P<.05 versus 10" paracord and operator gestalt
the remaining 20% had experience transfusing blood in civil-
ian or military field training scenarios, none (0%) had prior Novice Group
experience with the BC, PC, or OG techniques and were there- For the novice group (Figure 7, top), OG (69%) averaged
fore considered novices for the present study. nearly double the rate of correct fills than BC (37%, P<.001)
and one-third higher in the rate of correct fills than PC (52%,
Expert group participants (n=10) each had a minimum of 25- P<.05). PC trended higher than BC in correct fills (P=.07).
100 repetitions with the BC, OG, and PC techniques and were
therefore considered experts for the present study. The expert Expert Group
group averaged 92 months of healthcare training (range 54– For the expert group (Figure 7, bottom), PC (80%) was mar-
194), 1.8 deployments (range 1–3), and 0.3 combat deploy- ginally higher in correct fills than OG (70%, P=.59) and
ments (range 0–1). trended higher than BC (50%) in correct fills (P=.08). PC and
OG did not significantly differ (P=.59).
Volume (inferred from bag fill weight) FIGURE 7 Percentages of correct fill, underfill (low), and overfill
Novice Group (high) volumes by group.
For the novice group (Figure 5), BC averaged 90g lower Novice
(P<.0001), PC averaged 54g lower (P<.0001), and OG aver-
aged 26g lower (P<.001) than the target weight (horizontal 6.5" Beaded Cable Operator Gestalt
gray line in Figure 5). High, 6%
Low,
Low, 60% Low, 45% High, 3% 25%
FIGURE 5 Bag fill weight for novices.
Correct Fill High, 3% 52% Correct Fill
69%
37%
Expert
10" Paracord
Low, Low, 10% High,
Low, 20% 20%
Correct Fill
50% 80% 70%

Underfills and Overfills
*P<.0001 versus 6.5" beaded cable and P<.01 versus 10" paracord; Novice Group
† P<.01 versus 6.5" beaded cable For the novice group (Figure 7, top), there were significantly
more underfills (“Low”) than overfills (“High”) for BC
OG was significantly higher than BC (P<.0001) and PC (P<.0001), PC (P<.0001), and OG (P<.01). There were signifi-
(P<.01). PC was significantly higher than BC (P<.01). cantly fewer underfills for OG than for BC (P<.0001) and PC
(P<.02). PC trended higher than BC in underfills (P=.07). OG
Expert Group did not significantly differ from PC or BC in overfills (each
For the expert groups (Figure 6), BC averaged 82g lower P=.42).
(P<.05), PC averaged 24g lower (P=.18), and OG averaged
18g higher (P=.19) than the 585g target weight (horizontal Expert Group
gray line). BC was significantly lower than OG (P<.05) and PC For the expert group (Figure 7, bottom), there were no ex-
(P<.05). OG trended higher than PC (P=.07). pert group overfills for BC or for PC. There were somewhat

Accuracy of Whole Blood Collection Techniques for Target Volume | 61