>>2545527>Why the fuck are you weirdos so obsessed with dedicated tourniquets. All it has to do is cut off circulation.Because dedicated tqs work better
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2738052In a study of 102 laymen who had just completed an ACS Bleeding Control Basic training only 32.4% of participants were able to correctly apply an improvised tourniquet (defined as one that provided sufficient pressure to halt bleeding) even in a non-stressful situation when provided with appropriate materials (i.e. they didn't have to think about taking their belt off or searching for a windlass). In comparison 92.2% of participants correctly applied a CAT tourniquet.
Interestingly people were better off with an improvised tq than using SWAT-T or RATS.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26125163/Without a windlass, improvised tourniquets failed to stop bleeding in 99% of tests (79 of 80 tests). With a windlass, improvised tourniquets failed to stop bleeding in 32% of tests (p < .0001).
>https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(20)31170-7/fulltextIn a study80 hospital employees (including a mix of healthcare professionals and non-healthcare hospital employees) 32% of subjects were able to stop simulated hemorrhage on the initial improvised tourniquet trial, this number rose to 68% following simulator-based training instructing them on the use of commercial and improvised training. In comparison 94% of subjects using CAT tourniquet were able to successfully stop simulated hemorrhage.
Read that again, even after dedicated training and practice only 68% of individuals could control bleeding using an improvised tourniquet. This was in ideal situations after being provided with a wide variety of appropriate tourniquet materials, and applying it to a manikin rather than one-handed on their own body.
