Background and significance: Pediatric patients experiencing life-threatening hemorrhage—especially due to trauma—have significantly higher mortality rates compared to adults, and each additional 10-minute delay in blood administration increases mortality. Rapid blood transfusion is a cornerstone of pediatric trauma resuscitation but can be complicated by small-bore vascular access and the need for close volume control to avoid fluid overload. Few rapid infusion systems provide close volume control, warming, and compatibility with very small-bore catheters or intraosseous access. Manual rapid infusers may have administration benefits, particularly in pediatric patients for their ability to infuse through IO and small-bore IV access with rapid infusion rates, which are particularly valuable in prehospital and ED settings. Purpose/Objective: For traumatically injured pediatric patients requiring emergent blood transfusion, how does a hand-pump rapid infuser system and portable high-flow blood warmer compared to existing practice of infusion pump and passive blood warmer affect ease of use, speed of administration, and volume control through a small gauge IV or IO? Method: Participants reviewed standardized training for two blood administration systems consisting of manufacturer training videos and photos demonstrating correct set up. Each participant completed back-to-back timed trials using a low fidelity IV training arm for set up and administration of 100 ml of simulated blood using each of the two systems. For each trial, participants started with a complete, disassembled set of tubing for the tested system. System One consisted of an IV infusion pump [BD Alaris™] with large volume in-line blood/fluid warmer (3M™ Ranger™) currently in use at the facility. System Two consisted of a manual rapid infuser (Life Flow PLUS®) with in-line rapid blood/fluid warmer (QinFlow™ Warrior LITE). For each trial, time benchmarks included start time, system primed with saline, system primed with simulated blood, simulated blood reaching IV site, and 100 ml of blood administration complete. Following each trial, participants rated workload using the Raw NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Following completion of both systems’ time trials, participants answered which system they would prefer to use in pediatric trauma resuscitations. Results/Outcomes: Complete data analysis is underway. 30 participants completed side-by-side timed trials. Trial one averaged 12.41 minutes; trial two averaged 3.76 minutes. Trial one NASA-TLX scores averaged 50.3 (moderate workload); trial 2 NASA-TLX scores average score of 28.8 (low workload). 96.6% (n=29) of participants preferred Trial 2. Conclusion/Implications: LifeFlow PLUS was faster, preferred by almost every participant, and had less subjective workload for administering blood to a simulated pediatric trauma. LifeFlow PLUS may be a more effective administration method to minimize delays associated with increased mortality in trauma. Effective pediatric resuscitation requires timely, coordinated intervention. Cognitive load management, a key principle of crisis resource management, is one of several factors that influence resuscitation team effectiveness. By assessing blood administration systems and users’ experience, we can reduce delays and task saturation to improve pediatric trauma resuscitation.