Exploratory laparotomy during the battle of Mosul, 2016-2017: results from a tertiary civilian hospital in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan.

BACKGROUND: The Battle of Mosul (2016-2017) was an urban conflict resulting in over 9000 civilian deaths. Emergency Management Centre (EMC), located 90 km from Mosul, was designated as a civilian-run trauma centre as part of the novel Mosul Trauma Pathway. Patients necessitating exploratory laparotomy (ex-lap) provide a unique window into the system of care delivery in conflicts, given the importance of timely, resource-intensive care. However, there is insufficient knowledge regarding the presentation and outcomes for conflict-related ex-lap in civilian institutions. METHODS: This is a descriptive study retrospectively analyzing routinely collected data for all patients who underwent ex-lap at EMC for injuries sustained during the battle of Mosul. Differences in demographics, pre-hospital/hospital course, and New Injury Severity Scores (NISS) were analysed using student t-test, Hotelling T-squared, and linear regression. RESULTS: During the battle, 1832 patients with conflict-related injuries were admitted to EMC. Some 73/1832 (4.0%) underwent ex-lap, of whom 22/73 (30.1%) were children and 40/73 (54.8%) were non-combatant adults. Men constituted 51/73 (69%) patients. Gunshot wounds caused 19/73 (26.0%) injuries, while ordnances caused 52/73 (71.2%). Information regarding hospital course was available for 47/73 (64.4%) patients. Children had prolonged time from injury to first laparotomy compared to adults (600 vs 208 min, p < 0.05). Median LOS was 6 days (IQR 4-9.5); however, 11/47 (23%) patients left against medical advice. Post-operative complications occurred in 11/47 (23.4%) patients; 6/11 (54.5%) were surgical site infections. There were 12 (25.5%) patients who underwent relaparotomies after index surgery elsewhere; 10/12 (83.3%) were for failed repairs or missed injuries. Median NISS was 18 (IQR 12-27). NISS were significantly higher for women (vs men; 28.5 vs 19.8), children (vs adults; 28.8 vs 20), and relaparotomy patients (vs primary laparotomy patients; 32.0 vs 19.0). Some 3 patients died, 2 of whom were relaparotomies. CONCLUSION: At this civilian tertiary trauma centre, conflict-related exploratory laparotomies were associated with low morbidity and mortality. Long transport times, high rates of repeat laparotomies, and high numbers of patients leaving against medical advice raise questions regarding continuity of care along the Mosul Trauma Pathway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered at Clinicaltrails.gov, ID NCT03490305, prior to collection of data.

Experiences of Acute Surgical Care During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Among Patients and Their Next of Kin.

INTRODUCTION: Since March 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has affected healthcare systems worldwide. It is largely unknown how acutely ill surgical patients and their next of kin have perceived the hospital care during the ongoing pandemic. Therefore, we aimed to explore their experiences. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed 12 interviews with patients who had undergone acute abdominal surgery in a public acute care hospital in Sweden during March to June 2020. In addition, we interviewed 10 of the patients' next of kin. We analyzed the interviews using content analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis resulted in two themes: "Worries about seeking acute care" and "The surgical care worked adequately, even though the system was overloaded." The participants experienced that the hospital maintained its functionality during the ongoing pandemic. Both the patients and their next of kin experienced insufficient information by the hospital, especially during the initial acute phase and at discharge, which led to a perceived loss of control. The implemented ban on visitors was found to have had both positive and negative effects for the patients, whereas the next of kin's experiences focused on the difficulties with not being able to visit. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the challenges of communication with patients and their next of kin are exacerbated during a crisis such as a pandemic. In addition, a ban on visitors might have both positive and negative aspects. Therefore, we propose individualized routines for visits to acute surgical patients when possible.

Moral Distress Among Operating Room Personnel During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the reallocation of healthcare resources, and a minimization of elective activities. Healthcare personnel involved in COVID-19 care have been negatively affected by the associated excess stress. The existing COVID-19 research has focused on the experiences among healthcare personnel in general, and not particularly on the operating room team members, who have often been relocated to overburdened workplaces. Therefore, we aimed to explore the experiences in this particular group. METHODS: This study has a qualitative inductive design based on interviews with a strategic sample of 12 operating room team members: surgeons, anesthesiologist, specialist nurses, and nurse assistants. The interviews were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: "Feeling safe in the familiar and anxiety in the unknown", "To be the ones left behind", and "The possibility for recuperation in a seemingly everlasting situation". The participants described working hard, although their efforts were experienced as not enough according to their moral ideals. We interpreted this as feelings and signs of moral distress, a commonly described concept in previous studies during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a risk for burn out. CONCLUSIONS: The operating room team members emphasized the negative stress of being in the unknown, performing work tasks in an unfamiliar place and situation, and experiencing conflicting feelings of relief and guilt. Organizational strategies toward a functional leadership and support should be emphasized. Such strategies might reduce the risk of psychological consequences such as burn out.

Treatment Strategies and Perforation Rate of Acute Appendicitis During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Swedish Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown whether the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on emergency surgical care in Sweden. This study aimed to compare frequency, treatment strategies, severity, and complication rate of appendicitis during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with those of previous years. METHODS: In this single-center study, we identified all patients admitted with appendicitis between March 16 and June 16, 2020, at the Stockholm South General Hospital, and compared these with patients hospitalized with appendicitis during the same calendar period the three previous years. We used multivariate logistic regression to calculate Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals as measurement of the association between appendicitis treatment and perforation rate during the COVID-19 period compared to the nonCOVID-19 periods. RESULTS: In all, 892 patients hospitalized with appendicitis were identified, 241 (27%) in 2020 (Covid period group) and the remaining 651 (73%) during the same calendar periods 2017-2019 (nonCovid period group). Appendicitis during the COVID-19 period was associated with double the risk for undergoing conservative treatment (OR 2.15 [95% CI 1.44-3.21]), and a decreased risk for being diagnosed with perforated appendicitis (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.48-0.98]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted with appendicitis during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Stockholm, Sweden, were more likely to receive conservative treatment and less likely to suffer from perforated appendicitis compared to patients hospitalized before the pandemic. Hypothetically, this difference could have been due to pandemic-associated resource reallocation, or it may simply reflect an increasing trend towards conservative management of appendicitis.

A Last Resort When There is No Blood: Experiences and Perceptions of Intraoperative Autotransfusion Among Medical Doctors Deployed to Resource-Limited Settings.

BACKGROUND: Four and a half million people die globally every year due to traumatic injuries. One major cause of preventable death is bleeding. Blood for transfusion is often unavailable in resource-limited settings, where a majority of trauma deaths occur. Intraoperative autotransfusion (IAT) has been proposed as a safe and feasible lifesaving alternative to allogeneic blood transfusion. However, there is limited knowledge regarding its use among doctors working for international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) in resource-limited settings. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and perceptions of IAT among INGO-affiliated medical doctors with clinical experience in resource-limited settings. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews via telephone or Skype with 12 purposefully sampled surgeons and anaesthesiologists. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: We identified three main themes relating to IAT and bottlenecks preventing the scale-up of its use: variation in techniques and systems, contextual factors, and individual medical doctor factors. The participants gave detailed reports of missed opportunities for usage of IAT in resource-limited settings. Bottlenecks included the lack of simple and cost-effective products, limited availability of protocols in the field, and insufficient knowledge and experience of IAT. CONCLUSIONS: The participants found that simple IAT is under-utilised in resource-limited settings. Missed opportunities to use IAT were mainly associated with armed conflict settings and obstetrical emergencies. In order to meet the need for IAT in resource-limited settings, we suggest further consideration of the identified bottlenecks.

Analysis of Scientific Publications During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Topic Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has spread at an alarming speed, and effective treatment for the disease is still lacking. The body of evidence on COVID-19 has been increasing at an impressive pace, creating the need for a method to rapidly assess the current knowledge and identify key information. Gold standard methods such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses are regarded unsuitable because they have a narrow scope and are very time consuming. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the published scientific literature on COVID-19 and map the research evolution during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search to analyze the titles, keywords, and abstracts of published papers on COVID-19. We used latent Dirichlet allocation modeling to extract topics and conducted a trend analysis to understand the temporal changes in research for each topic, journal impact factor (JIF), and geographic origin. RESULTS: Based on our search, we identified 16,670 relevant articles dated between February 14, 2020, and June 1, 2020. Of these, 6 articles were reports from peer-reviewed randomized trials on patients with COVID-19. We identified 14 main research topics, of which the most common topics were health care responses (2812/16,670, 16.86%) and clinical manifestations (1828/16,670, 10.91%). We found an increasing trend for research on clinical manifestations and protective measures and a decreasing trend for research on disease transmission, epidemiology, health care response, and radiology. Publications on protective measures, immunology, and clinical manifestations were associated with the highest JIF. The overall median JIF was 3.7 (IQR 2.6-5.9), and we found that the JIF for these publications declined over time. The top countries producing research were the United States, China, Italy, and the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: In less than 6 months since the novel coronavirus was first detected, a remarkably high number of research articles on COVID-19 have been published. Here, we discuss and present the temporal changes in the available COVID-19 research during the early phase of the pandemic. Our findings may aid researchers and policy makers to form a structured view of the current COVID-19 evidence base and provide further research directions.

Epidemiology of Trauma Patients from the Mosul Offensive, 2016-2017: Results from a Dedicated Trauma Center in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan.

INTRODUCTION: Most epidemiological studies from conflicts are restricted to either combatants or civilians. It is largely unknown how the epidemiology differs between the two groups. In 2016, an Iraqi-led coalition began retaking Mosul from the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. One key institution that received trauma patients from Mosul was Emergency Management Center (EMC) in Erbil, 90 km away. The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiology, morbidity, and mortality of civilians and combatants admitted during the ongoing conflict. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study utilized routinely collected data on patients with conflict-related injuries who were admitted to EMC between October 16, 2016, and July 10, 2017. Data processing and analysis was carried out using JMP 13. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The analysis included 1725 patients, out of which 46% were civilian. Ordnance accounted for most injuries (68%), followed by firearms (18%) and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) (14%). The proportion of IED-related injuries among combatants were almost three times that of civilians. The proportions of abdominal injuries, need for surgery, laparotomies, and amputations were significantly higher among civilians than among combatants. The mortality rate was 0.5%. DISCUSSION: The fact that civilians had greater surgical needs than combatants may be explained by several factors including a lack of ballistic protection. The extremely low mortality rate indicates significant gaps in prehospital care and transport. Our results may provide useful information to guide medical preparedness and response during future conflicts. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT03358758.

Infection with high proportion of multidrug-resistant bacteria in conflict-related injuries is associated with poor outcomes and excess resource consumption: a cohort study of Syrian patients treated in Jordan.

BACKGROUND: Armed conflicts are a major contributor to injury and death globally. Conflict-related injuries are associated with a high risk of wound infection, but it is unknown to what extent infection directly relates to sustainment of life and restoration of function. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome and resource consumption among civilians receiving acute surgical treatment due to conflict-related injuries. Patients with and without wound infections were compared. METHODS: We performed a cohort study using routinely collected data from 457 consecutive Syrian civilians that received surgical treatment for acute conflict-related injuries during 2014-2016 at a Jordanian hospital supported by Médecins Sans Frontières. We defined wound infection as clinical signs of infection verified by a positive culture. We used logistic regression models to evaluate infection-related differences in outcome and resource consumption. RESULTS: Wound infection was verified in 49/457 (11%) patients. Multidrug-resistance (MDR) was detected in 36/49 (73%) of patients with infection. Among patients with infection, 11/49 (22%) were amputated, compared to 37/408 (9%) without infection, crude relative risk = 2.62 (95% confidence interval 1.42-4.81). Infected patients needed 12 surgeries on average, compared to five in non-infected patients (p < .00001). Mean length of stay was 77 days for patients with infection, and 35 days for patients without infection (p = .000001). CONCLUSIONS: Among Syrian civilians, infected conflict-related wounds had a high prevalence of MDR bacteria. Wound infection was associated with poor outcomes and high resource consumption. These results could guide the development of antibiotic protocols and adaptations of surgical management to improve care for wound infections in conflict-related injuries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02744144 ). Registered April 13, 2016. Retrospectively registered.

Autotransfusion in low-resource settings: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, haemorrhage is the leading cause of both maternal mortality and preventable trauma death. For patients suffering from haemorrhage, prompt blood transfusion can be life-saving; however, safe and sufficient blood is often lacking in low-resource settings (LRS). Autotransfusion (AT), in which the patient's own blood is collected and transfused back, is an established alternative to donor blood transfusions, although one that is primarily performed with advanced AT systems. Research on basic AT in LRS is scarce. Therefore, we aimed to consolidate all available information on the current use of basic AT in LRS and to identify AT techniques and devices described for use in such settings. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: We systematically searched four key databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Global Health and Cochrane Library as well as several grey literature databases and databases of relevant organisations. The final search was conducted on 22 April 2019. We included all types of studies referring to any information on basic AT used or sought to be used in LRS, published in English and dated after 31 December 2008. We synthesised the data from the included studies, results were charted or summarised narratively. RESULTS: Some 370 records were reviewed, yielding 38 included documents. We found a paucity of scientific evidence as well as contradictory information on the extent of AT use and that AT use is largely undocumented. The most commonly described indications were haemoperitoneum (primarily among obstetric patients) and haemothorax. We identified three AT techniques used in LRS. Additionally, two new devices and one filter are described for potential use in LRS. CONCLUSIONS: Basic AT is practiced for certain obstetric and trauma indications. However, context-specific studies are needed to determine the technique's safety and effectiveness. Extent of use is difficult to assess, but our results indicate that basic AT is not a widely established practice in LRS. Future research should address the bottlenecks hampering basic AT availability. New AT devices for use in LRS are described, but their utility and cost-effectiveness remain to be assessed.

Wound specific quality of life after blast or gunshot injury: Validation of the wound QoL instrument.

BACKGROUND: Acute blast or gunshot wounds have a negative effect on the patients' health related quality of life (HRQoL). No validated instrument exists to assess the HRQoL of patients with such wounds. Therefore, we aimed to test and validate a subscale of an existing HRQoL instrument among patients with acute blast or gunshot wounds. METHODS: We used data from a randomized controlled trial comparing negative pressure wound therapy with standard treatment of civilian adults with acute extremity blast or gunshot wounds. We evaluated the reliability (internal consistency, stability) and validity of the body subscale of the Wound QoL instrument using the World Health Organisation 20 question self-reporting questionnaire as gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 152 participants were included in the study. The participants were predominantly (93.4%) male, and median age was 29.0 years (IQR 21.0-34.0). The internal consistency was acceptable while a test-retest analysis indicated instability in the Wound QoL instrument. The content validity of the instrument was considered satisfactory; however, the criterion validity was found to be insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that Wound QoL is a promising instrument for the assessment of wound specific HRQoL among patients with acute blast or gunshot wounds. Further testing and validation is needed.

Cost analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard treatment of acute conflict-related extremity wounds within a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes after negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and standard treatment of conflict-related extremity wounds are similar. In resource-limited settings, cost affects the choice of treatment. We aimed to estimate treatment-related costs of NPWT in comparison with standard treatment for conflict-related extremity wounds. METHODS: We derived outcome data from a randomized, controlled superiority trial that enrolled adult (≥ 18 years) patients with acute (≤ 72 h) conflict-related extremity wounds at two civilian hospitals in Jordan and Iraq. Primary endpoint was mean treatment-related healthcare costs (adjusted to 2019 US dollars). RESULTS: Patients were enrolled from June 9, 2015, to October 24, 2018. A total of 165 patients (155 men [93.9%]; 10 women [6.1%]; and median [IQR] age, 28 [21-34] years) were included in the analysis. The cost per patient treated with NPWT was $142 above that of standard treatment. Overall, results were robust in a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: With similar clinical outcomes compared to standard care, our results do not support the use of NPWT in routine treatment of conflict-related extremity wounds at civilian hospitals in resource scarce settings. Trial registration NCT02444598.

Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard treatment in patients with acute conflict-related extremity wounds: a pragmatic, multisite, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In armed conflict, injuries among civilians are usually complex and commonly affect the extremities. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an alternative to standard treatment of acute conflict-related extremity wounds. We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of NPWT with that of standard treatment. METHODS: In this pragmatic, randomised, controlled superiority trial done at two civilian hospitals in Jordan and Iraq, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older, presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 h after injury. Participants were assigned (1:1) to receive either NPWT or standard treatment. We used a predefined, computer-generated randomisation list with three block sizes. Participants and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was wound closure by day 5. The coprimary endpoint was net clinical benefit, defined as a composite of wound closure by day 5 and freedom from any bleeding, wound infection, sepsis, or amputation of the index limb. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02444598, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 9, 2015, and Oct 24, 2018, 174 patients were randomly assigned to either the NPWT group (n=88) or the standard treatment group (n=86). Five patients in the NPWT group and four in the standard treatment group were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. By day 5, 41 (49%) of 83 participants in the NPWT group and 49 (60%) of 82 participants in the standard treatment group had closed wounds, with an absolute difference of 10 percentage points (95% CI -5 to 25, p=0·212; risk ratio [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·62 to 1·09). Net clinical benefit was seen in 33 (41%) of 81 participants in the NPWT group and 34 (44%) of 78 participants in the standard treatment group, with an absolute difference of 3 percentage points (95% CI -12 to 18, p=0·750; RR 0·93, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·35). There was one in-hospital death in the standard treatment group and none in the NPWT group. The proportion of participants with sepsis, bleeding leading to blood transfusion, and limb amputation did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: NPWT did not yield superior clinical outcomes compared with standard treatment for acute conflict-related extremity wounds. The results of this study not only question the use of NPWT, but also question the tendency for new and costly treatments to be introduced into resource-limited conflict settings without supporting evidence for their effectiveness. This study shows that high-quality, randomised trials in challenging settings are possible, and our findings support the call for further research that will generate context-specific evidence. FUNDING: The Stockholm County Council, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, and Médecins Sans Frontières.

Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst-An Assessment of Flood Preparedness at Primary Health Care Facilities in Central Vietnam.

Background: Floods affect over 85 million people every year and are one of the deadliest types of natural disasters. The health effects of floods are partly due to a loss of access to health care. This loss can be limited with proper flood preparedness. Flood preparedness is especially needed at the primary health care (PHC) level. Flood preparedness assessments can be used to identify vulnerable facilities and help target efforts. The existing research on PHC flood preparedness is limited. We aimed to assess the flood preparedness of PHC facilities in a flood-prone province in central Vietnam. Methods: Based on flood experience, the PHC facilities in the province were grouped as "severe" (n = 23) or "non-severe" (n = 129). Assessments were conducted during monsoon season at five facilities from each group, using a pre-tested, semi-structured questionnaire. Data were checked against official records when possible. Results: Nine of the ten facilities had a flood plan and four received regular flood preparedness training. Six facilities reported insufficient preparedness support. Half of the facilities had additional funding available for flood preparedness, or in case of a flood. Flood preparedness training had been received by 21/28 (75%) of the staff at the facilities with severe flood experience, versus 15/25 (52%) of the staff at the non-severe experience facilities. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the assessed PHC facilities were not sufficiently prepared for the expected floods during monsoon season. PHC flood preparedness assessments could be used to identify vulnerable facilities and populations in flood-prone areas. More research is needed to further develop and test the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

Perceptions of Healthcare-Associated Infection and Antibiotic Resistance among Physicians Treating Syrian Patients with War-Related Injuries.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) constitute a major contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide, with a greater burden on low- and middle-income countries. War-related injuries generally lead to large tissue defects, with a high risk of infection. The aim of this study was to explore how physicians in a middle-income country in an emergency setting perceive HAI and antibiotic resistance (ABR). Ten physicians at a Jordanian hospital supported by Médecins Sans Frontières were interviewed face-to-face. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by qualitative content analysis with an inductive and deductive approach. The participants acknowledged risk factors of HAI and ABR development, such as patient behavior, high numbers of injured patients, limited space, and non-compliance with hygiene protocols, but did not express a sense of urgency or any course of action. Overuse and misuse of antibiotics were reported as main contributors to ABR development, but participants expressed no direct interrelationship between ABR and HAI. We conclude that due to high patient load and limited resources, physicians do not see HAI as a problem they can prioritize. The knowledge gained by this study could provide insights for the allocation of resources and development of hygiene and wound treatment protocols in resource-limited settings.

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Treatment of Adult Patients With Conflict-Related Extremity Wounds: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In armed conflict, injuries commonly affect the extremities and contamination with foreign material often increases the risk of infection. The use of negative-pressure wound therapy has been described in the treatment of acute conflict-related wounds, but reports are retrospective and with limited follow-up. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of negative-pressure wound therapy use in the treatment of patients with conflict-related extremity wounds. METHODS: This is a multisite, superiority, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. We are considering for inclusion patients 18 years of age and older who are presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 hours after injury. Patients are block randomly assigned to either negative-pressure wound therapy or standard treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is wound closure by day 5. Secondary end points include length of stay, wound infection, sepsis, wound complications, death, and health-related quality of life. We will explore economic outcomes, including direct health care costs and cost effectiveness, in a substudy. Data are collected at baseline and at each dressing change, and participants are followed for up to 3 months. We will base the primary statistical analysis on intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The trial is ongoing. Patient enrollment started in June 2015. We expect to publish findings from the trial by the end of 2019. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, there has been no randomized trial of negative-pressure wound therapy in this context. We expect that our findings will increase the knowledge to establish best-treatment strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02444598; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02444598 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72hjI2XNX). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12334.

"Reality rarely looks like the guidelines": a qualitative study of the challenges hospital-based physicians encounter in war wound management.

BACKGROUND: Globally, armed conflict is a major contributor to mortality and morbidity. The treatment of war-associated injuries is largely experience-based. Evidence is weak due to difficulty in conducting medical research in war settings. A qualitative method could provide insight into the specific challenges associated with providing health care to injured civilians. The aim of this study was to explore the challenges hospital-based physicians encounter in war wound management, focusing on surgical intervention and antibiotic use. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with physicians at a Jordanian hospital supported by Médecins Sans Frontières. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis with an inductive and deductive approach. RESULTS: We found that challenges in war wound management primarily relate to protocol adherence. Protocols for the management of acute war wounds were adhered to on areas that could be considered commonly agreed principles of war wound surgery, such as the use of wound debridement and the evaluation of the systemic condition of the patient before initiating antibiotic treatment. We identified limitations imposed on the physicians that complicate or even hinder protocol adherence. Additionally, we identified factors associated with conscious deviations from the protocols. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that adherence to established protocols around the management of acute war wounds is difficult. We present aspects that may be considered when establishing clinical projects in similar contexts. The knowledge gained by this study could provide insights for the development of protocols or guidelines for wound management and antibiotic use in an unstable setting, such as a hospital in close proximity to armed conflict. We suggest the use of a grounded theory approach to further study the discrepancy between guideline recommendations and actual practice.