Blackman VS, Walrath BD, Reeves LK, Mora AG, Maddry JK, Stockinger ZT
Crit Care Nurse. 2018 Apr;38(2):e1-e6. doi: 10.4037/ccn2018630.
BACKGROUND: US Navy nurses provide en route care for critically injured combat casualties without having a formal program for training, utilization, or evaluation. Little is known about missions supported by Navy nurses.
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the number and types of patients transported and skill sets required by Navy nurses during 2 combat support deployments.
METHODS: All interfacility casualty transfers between 2 separate facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan were assessed. Number of patients treated, number transported, en route care provider type, transport priority level and duration, injury severity, indication for critical care transport, en route care interventions, and vital signs were evaluated.
RESULTS: Of 1550 casualties, 630 required medical evacuation to a higher level of care. Of those, 133 (21%) were transported by a Navy nurse, with 131 (98.5%) classified as "urgent," accounting for 46% of all urgent transports. The primary indication for en route care nursing was mechanical ventilation of intubated patients (97%). Mean (SD) patient transport time was 29.8 (7.9) minutes (range, 17-61 minutes). The most common en route care interventions were administration of intravenous sedation (80%), neuromuscular blockade (79%), and opioids (48%); transfusions (18%); and ventilation changes (11%). No intubations, cricothyroidotomies, chest tube placements, or needle decompressions were performed en route. No deaths occurred during transport.
CONCLUSIONS: US Navy nurses successfully transported critically injured patients without observed adverse events. Establishing en route care as a program of record in the Navy will facilitate continuous process improvement to ensure that future casualties receive optimized en route care.
Butler WP, Steinkraus LW, Burlingame EE, Smith DE, Fouts BL, Serres JL, Burch DS
Mil Med. 2018 Mar 1;183(suppl_1):193-202
Combat medical care relies on aeromedical evacuation (AE). Vital to AE is the validating flight surgeon (VFS) who warrants a patient is "fit to fly." To do this, the VFS considers clinical characteristics and inflight physiological stressors, often prescribing specific interventions such as a cabin altitude restriction (CAR). Unfortunately, limited information is available regarding the clinical consequences of a CAR. Consequently, a dual case-control study (CAR patients versus non-CAR patients and non-CAR patients flown with a CAR versus non-CAR patients) was executed. Data on 1,114 patients were obtained from TRANSCOM Regulating and Command and Control Evacuation System and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center trauma database (January 2007 to February 2008). Demographic and clinical factors essentially showed no difference between groups; however, CAR patients appeared more severely injured than non-CAR patients. Despite being sicker, CAR patients had similar clinical outcomes when compared with non-CAR patients. In contrast, despite an equivocal severity picture, the non-CAR patients flown with a CAR had superior clinical outcomes when compared with non-CAR patients. It appeared that the CAR prescription normalized severely injured to moderately injured and brought moderately injured into a less morbid state. These results suggest that CAR should be seriously considered when evacuating seriously ill/injured patients.
Wandling MW, Nathens AB, Shapiro MB, Haut ER.
JAMA Surg. 2018 Feb 1;153(2):107-113
Importance: Time to definitive care following injury is important to the outcomes of trauma patients. Prehospital trauma care is provided based on policies developed by individual trauma systems and is an important component of the care of injured patients. Given a paucity of systems-level trauma research, considerable variability exists in prehospital care policies across trauma systems, potentially affecting patient outcomes.
Objective: To evaluate whether private vehicle prehospital transport confers a survival advantage vs ground emergency medical services (EMS) transport following penetrating injuries in urban trauma systems.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of data included in the National Trauma Data Bank from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, comprising 298 level 1 and level 2 trauma centers that contribute data to the National Trauma Data Bank that are located within the 100 most populous metropolitan areas in the United States. Of 2 329 446 patients assessed for eligibility, 103 029 were included in this study. All patients were 16 years or older, had a gunshot wound or stab wound, and were transported by ground EMS or private vehicle.
Main Outcome and Measure: In-hospital mortality.
Results: Of the 2 329 446 records assessed for eligibility, 103 029 individuals at 298 urban level 1 and level 2 trauma centers were included in the analysis. The study population was predominantly male (87.6%), with a mean age of 32.3 years. Among those included, 47.9% were black, 26.3% were white, and 18.4% were Hispanic. Following risk adjustment, individuals with penetrating injuries transported by private vehicle were less likely to die than patients transported by ground EMS (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.31-0.47). This association remained statistically significant on stratified analysis of the gunshot wound (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56) and stab wound (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.52) subgroups.
Conclusions and Relevance: Private vehicle transport is associated with a significantly lower likelihood of death when compared with ground EMS transport for individuals with gunshot wounds and stab wounds in urban US trauma systems. System-level evidence such as this can be a valuable tool for those responsible for developing and implementing policies at the trauma system level.