Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)最新文献

Background: Emergency medicine is recognized as a critical wartime specialty within the US military. Military emergency medicine contributes to medical literature in unique ways not seen with our civilian counterparts. The impact of this contribution, especially regarding innovations in military medicine, has not been previously examined. This study evaluates the numbers of citations for emergency medicine manuscripts published by members of the US military.

Methods: Utilizing the Scopus database, we identified published manuscripts from 2000 to 2020 with an emergency medicine author affiliated with a US military treatment facility. We sorted manuscripts on the number of citations in Scopus and categorized each paper as to whether it addressed military unique topics.

Results: We identified 1,718 manuscripts through Scopus, and based on a 10-citation minimum, we further analyzed 508 manuscripts. After verification of military affiliation, we included 421 manuscripts. The mean number of citations per manuscript was 31.7 ± 40.5; the Mean Cite Score was 4.75 ± 6.17 with a Field Weighted Citation Index (FWCI) of 2.96 ± 6.25. Citation count of publications has been steadily increasing in recent years with significantly more citations for military relevant publications when compared to non-military relevant publications.

Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of military emergency medicine scholarly activity which has a history of contributions that address specific medical needs of the warfighter and advance the specialty. Military emergency medicine papers have seen rising numbers of citations in the medical literature, particularly those related to military relevant topics emphasizing combat casualty care and military readiness.

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) utilization continues to climb nationwide resulting in overcrowding, increasing wait times, and a surge in patients with non-urgent conditions. Patients frequently choose the ED for apparent non-emergent medical issues or injuries that after-the-fact could be cared for in a primary care setting. We seek to better understand the reasons why patients choose the ED over their primary care managers.

Methods: We prospectively surveyed patients that signed into the ED at the Brooke Army Medical Center as an emergency severity index of 4 or 5 (non-emergent triage) regarding their visit. We then linked their survey data to their ED visit including interventions, diagnoses, diagnostics, and disposition by using their electronic medical record. We defined their visit to be non-urgent and more appropriate for primary care, or primary care eligible, if they were discharged home and received no computed tomography (CT) imaging, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), intravenous (IV) medications, or intramuscular (IM) controlled substances.

Results: During the 2-month period, we collected data on 208 participants out of a total of 252 people offered a survey (82.5%). There were 92% (n=191) that were primary care eligible within our respondent pool. Most reported very good (38%) or excellent (21%) health at baseline. On survey assessing why they came, inability to get a timely appointment (n=73), and a self-reported emergency (n=58) were the most common reported reasons. Most would have utilized primary care if they had a next-morning appointment available (n=86), but many reported they would have utilized the ED regardless of primary care availability (n=77). The most common suggestion for improving access to care was more primary care appointment availability (n=96). X-rays were the most frequent study (37%) followed by laboratory studies (20%). Before coming to the ED, 38% (n=78) reported trying to contact their primary care for an appointment. Before coming to the ED, 22% (n=46) reported contacting the nurse advice line. Based on our predefined model, 92% (n=191) of our respondents were primary care eligible within our respondent pool.

Conclusions: Patient perceptions of difficulty obtaining appointments appear to be a major component of the ED use for non-emergent visits. Within our dataset, most patients surveyed stated they had difficulty obtaining a timely appointment or self-reported as an emergency. Data suggests most patients surveyed could be managed in the primary care setting.

Background: Extended Focused Assessment with Ultrasonography in Trauma (eFAST) reliably identifies noncompressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH), a major cause of battlefield death. Increased portability of ultrasound enables eFAST far forward on the battlefield, and published data demonstrate combat medics can learn and reliably perform ultrasound exams. One medical company developed an ultrasound device with an intuitive graphical user interface (GUI) and novel, finger-worn transducer with built-in linear and phased arrays, referred to as the novel device. We evaluated combat medic eFAST performance between the novel and conventional device.

Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, crossover trial completed at a single US military installation. Subjects were US Army combat medics with no previous ultrasound experience. Subjects performed an eFAST on a live human and a simulation model with both devices after a brief training intervention. Our primary outcome was time in seconds for eFAST completion, limited to 600 seconds. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic accuracy, technical adequacy using a validated task-specific checklist, and end-user appraisal of device ease-of-use with 5-point Likert items. This study was approved by the local institutional review board.

Results: Forty subjects volunteered, most were male (67.5%), less than 36 years old (95.0%), and grade E-4 or below (75.0%). Subjects performed a total of 160 eFAST scans (80 novel, 80 conventional). We found no significant difference in time for eFAST completion between the novel and conventional devices (391 seconds [95% CI 364, 417] versus 352 seconds [95% CI 325, 379]; p = 0.71). We also found no significant differences between the novel and conventional devices with respect to diagnostic accuracy (91.5% versus 89.2%; p = 0.28) and technical adequacy (75.0% versus 72.5%; p = 0.28). However, we did find that subjects favored the image quality of the novel device (4.3 versus 3.6; p is less than 0.01), while favoring the conventional transducer (3.8 versus 4.3; p = 0.04).

Conclusion: Combat medic eFAST performance utilizing both devices did not differ with respect to time to completion, diagnostic accuracy, and technical adequacy. Medics with limited ultrasound experience performed diagnostically accurate eFAST after a brief training intervention. Future research should assess learning gaps and skill retention in order to guide development of US military ultrasound training programs for combat medics.

Background: Based on isolated case reports, military helicopter mishaps often result in multiple critical casualties leading to complicated stabilization and evacuation by healthcare providers. The aim of this retrospective descriptive analysis is to describe the incidence of common prehospital injuries associated with rotary wing crashes in order to improve mission planning and casualty survivability.

Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from the Prehospital Trauma Registry and the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR) from April 2003 through May 2019. We searched within our dataset for all encounters involving aviation crashes.

Results: From April 2003 through May 2019 there were 1,357 casualty encounters in the Prehospital Trauma Registry. There were 12 casualties identified injured by aircraft crash, of which, 10 were linkable to the DoDTR for outcome data. All encounters for this sub analysis occurred in Afghanistan in 2014, all were US military service members, and a majority were enlisted conventional forces. Most prehospital interventions focused on hemorrhage control, to include limb tourniquets (n=3), pressure dressings (n=2), and pelvic splint (n=1). One patient received a cervical collar and two patients received temperature control with a hypothermia kit.

Conclusions: In this case series, hemorrhage control and extremity stabilization accounted for the majority of prehospital interventions. Larger datasets are needed to validate findings and extrapolate it into mission planning.

Background: Most battlefield deaths occur in the prehospital setting prior to reaching surgical and hospital care. Described are casualties captured by the Joint Trauma System (JTS) in the Prehospital Trauma Registry (PHTR) module of the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR), from inception through May 2019.

Methods: The JTS was queried for all PHTR encounters and associated data from inception (January 2003) through May 2019. The PHTR captures data on Role 1 prehospital care which encompasses treatment prior to arrival at a Role 2 with or without forward surgical team or Role 3 combat support hospital. Two unique patient identifiers were used to link DODTR outcome data to each PHTR encounter. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.

Results: We obtained a total of 1,357 encounters from the PHTR. Of these encounters, we successfully linked 52.2% (709/1357) to the DODTR for outcome data. Encounters spanned from 2003 to 2019, with most (69.5%) occurring from 2012 to 2014. Many casualties were in the 18-25 (25.5%) or 26-33 (27.0%) age ranges, male (99.2%), injured by explosive (47.1%) or firearm (34.8%), enlisted (44.8%), and US military conventional (24.1%) and special operations (23.9%) forces. Of those linked to the DODTR, demographics were similar, most casualties sustained battle injuries (87.1%), the majority of which survived (99.1%).

Conclusions: We described 1,357 encounters within the PHTR, most of which were US casualties and casualties injured by explosives. This renewed effort by the JTS to capture more casualties for inclusion into the registry has nearly doubled the proportion of available encounters for analysis. This analysis lays the foundation for in-depth analyses targeting areas for optimizing Role 1 prehospital combat casualty care.

Background: Battlefield first responders (BFR) are the first non-medical personnel to render critical lifesaving interventions for combat casualties, especially for massive hemorrhage where rapid control will improve survival. Soldiers receive medical instruction during initial entry training (IET) and unit-dependent medical training, and by attending the Combat Lifesaver (CLS) course. We seek to describe the interventions performed by BFRs on casualties with only BFRs listed in their chain of care within the Prehospital Trauma Registry (PHTR).

Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a dataset from the PHTR from 2003-2019. We excluded encounters with a documented medical officer, medic, or unknown prehospital provider at any time in their chain of care during the Role 1 phase to isolate only casualties with BFR medical care.

Results: Of the 1,357 encounters in our initial dataset, we identified 29 casualties that met inclusion criteria. Pressure dressing was the most common intervention (n=12), followed by limb tourniquets (n=4), IV fluids (n=3), hemostatic gauze (n=2), and wound packing (n=2). Bag-valve-masks, chest seals, extremity splints, and nasopharyngeal airways (NPA) were also used (n=1 each). Notably absent were backboards, blizzard blankets, cervical collars, eye shields, pelvic splints, hypothermia kits, chest tubes, supraglottic airways (SGA), intraosseous (I/O) lines, and needle decompression (NDC).

Conclusions: Despite limited training, BFRs employ vital medical skills in the prehospital setting. Our data show that BFRs largely perform medical interventions within the scope of their medical knowledge and training. Better datasets with efficacy and complication data are needed.

Introduction: Airway obstruction is the second leading cause of potentially preventable death on the battlefield during the recent conflicts. Previous studies have noted challenges with enrolling medics using quantitative methods, with specific challenges related to limited prior experience with the devices presented. This limited the ability to truly assess the efficacy of a particular device. We sought to implement a qualitative methods design for supraglottic airway (SGA) device testing.

Methods: We performed prospective, qualitative-designed studies in serial to discover emerging themes on interview. We obtained consent and demographic information from all participants. Medics were presented 2-3 airway devices in the same session with formal training by a physician with airway expertise to include practice application and troubleshooting. Semi-structured interviews were used after the training to obtain end-user feedback with a focus on emerging themes.

Results: Of the 77 medics surveyed and interviewed, the median age was 24, and 86% were male. During the interview sessions, we noted five emerging themes: (1) insertion, which pertains to the ease or complexity of using the devise; (2) material, which pertains to the tactile features of the device; (3) versatility, which pertains to the conditions in which the device can be used as well as with which other devices it can be used; (4) portability, which refers to how and where the device is stored and carried; and (5) training, which refers to the ease and frequency of initial and ongoing training to sustain medics' technical capability when using the device.

Conclusions: In our preliminary analysis after enrolling 77 medics, we noted 5 emerging themes focused on insertion material, versatility, portability, and training methodology. Our results will inform the future enrollment sessions with a goal of narrowing the market options from themes to ideal device or devices or modifications needed for the operational environment.

Background: Airway compromise is the second leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Special operations medic comprise the majority of medics trained to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI), mostly by way of direct laryngoscopy (DL). The iView is a disposable, low-cost video laryngoscopy (VL) device, enabling its distribution to prehospital medical providers. We seek to compare time to intubation between DL and iView VL among special operations combat medics (SOCM).

Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. We enrolled special operations medics assigned to Joint Base Lewis McChord, WA. We randomized subjects to first performing VL or DL. Subjects performed a total of 10 ETI, 5 by VL and 5 by DL, on adult airway manikins. The primary outcome was time (in seconds) for ETI completion.

Results: A total of 32 medics completed 160 with DL ETIs and 160 VL ETIs. A total of 10 of 32 (31.3%) medics reported no previous experience with VL devices. We found a significant difference in time to intubation between VL and DL (20.4 (95% CI 20.6 - 26.1) seconds versus 23.4 (95% CI 18.7 - 22.2) seconds; p = 0.03) in favor of VL. All VL attempts were successful while 96.9% of DL were successful (p = 0.10). With respect to end-user appraisal of devices, a significant number of medics preferred the iView VL over DL (23 versus 9; p is less than 0.00001). Additionally, medics considered iView VL easier to use (5 [5-6] versus 5 [4-5]; p=0.0004) and easier to learn, remember, and perform by combat medics (5 [5-5] versus 4 [4-5]; p=0.008).

Conclusions: Special operations medics naïve to VL rapidly learned how to effectively utilize iView VL, as evidenced by a significant difference in time to intubation in favor of iView VL. Additionally, most medics favored iView VL and considered it easy to use, learn, and remember.

The US Army Medical Department (AMEDD) is facing unprecedented changes brought on by legislative directives and a renewed emphasis on operational readiness. This article explores the impact of the Medical Corps (MC) survey results, media attention on military trauma readiness, and congressional mandates on military medicine. It highlights the work of emergency medicine (EM) physicians across the Army and the impact of the EM community on helping shape the future of Army medicine. Emergency Physicians at the Medical Center of Excellence are leveraging medical simulation to reduce a reliance on real-life experience, leading the development of new and increased opportunity for simulated operational medical training in order to meet the demands of deploying units. EM leadership at the Program Executive Officer for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) is helping ensure medical simulation capabilities developed meet the needs of the medical end user. The AMEDD Military-Civilian Trauma Team Training (AMCT3) partnerships developed as a line of effort under the Army Medical Skills Sustainment Program (AMSSP) are developing partnership to place military trauma teams in Level 1 civilian trauma centers to optimize real-world training. And EM physicians are serving as key leaders in the Army Ready Surgical Force Task Force tackling issues like central management of critical wartime specialties and legislative changes to lift caps on military physician bonuses to improve salary parity with the civilian sector.

Damage control resuscitation (DCR) simultaneously tackles hemorrhage control and balanced resuscitation in complex multisystem trauma patients. This technique can improve patient outcomes. This review outlines the importance of DCR with hemorrhage control and administration of fresh whole blood or component therapy if not available and avoiding crystalloid administration. Additionally, administration of tranexamic acid and calcium prove beneficial in critically ill trauma patients. Avoidance of acidosis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy remains a key but challenging goal of DCR.