A Conceptual Model of Individual Clinical Readiness.

INTRODUCTION: Force readiness is a priority among senior leaders across all branches of the Department of Defense. Units that do not achieve readiness benchmarks are considered non-deployable until the unit achieves the requisite benchmarks. Because military units are made up of individuals, the unit cannot be ready if the individuals within the unit are not ready. For medical personnel, this refers to one's ability to competently provide patient care in a deployed setting or their individual clinical readiness (ICR). A review of the literature found no conceptual model of ICR. Other potential concepts, such as individual medical readiness, were identified but used inconsistently. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to define ICR and propose a conceptual model to inform future efforts to achieve ICR and facilitate future study of the concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Model development occurred using a 3-step theoretical model synthesis process. The process included specification of key concepts, identification of related factors and relationships, and organizing them into an integrated network of ideas. RESULTS: ICR is the clinically oriented service members' (COSM) ability to meet the demands of the militarily relevant, assigned clinical mission. ICR leads to one's "individual clinical performance," a key concept distinct from ICR. To understand ICR, one must account for "individual characteristics," as well as one's "education," "training," and "exposure." ICR and individual clinical performance are influenced by the "quality of exposure" and the "patient care environment." One's "individual clinical performance" also reciprocally influences the patient care environment, as well as the "team's clinical performance." These factors (individual clinical performance, team clinical performance, and the patient care environment) influence "patient outcomes." In the proposed model, patient outcomes are an indirect result of ICR and its antecedents (personal characteristics, education, training, and exposure); one's individual clinical performance may not be consistent with their ICR. Patient outcomes are also influenced by the "patient environment" (external to the health care environment) and "patient characteristics"; these elements of the model do not influence ICR or individual clinical performance. CONCLUSION: Force readiness is a Department of Defense priority. In order for military units to be deployment ready, so too must their personnel be deployment ready. For COSMs, this includes one's ability to competently provide patient care in a deployed setting or their ICR. This article defines ICR, as well as identifies another key concept and other factors associated with ICR. The proposed model is a tool for military medical leaders to communicate with and influence non-medical military leaders in the Department of Defense. Future research is needed to further refine the proposed model, determine the strength of the proposed relationships, and identify interventions to improve ICR.

Effectiveness of Mobile Applications for Trauma Care in Combat Casualty Simulations Throughout the Continuum.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Military uses handwritten documentation throughout the continuum of combat casualty care to document from point-of-injury, during transport and at facilities that provide damage control resuscitation and surgery. Proven impractical due to lack of durability and legibility in arduous tactical environments, we hypothesized that mobile applications would increase accuracy and completeness of documentation in combat casualty simulations. METHODS: We conducted simulations across this continuum utilizing 10 two-person teams consisting of a Medic and an Emergency or Critical Care Nurse. Participants were randomized to either the paper group or BATDOK and T6 Health Systems mobile application group. Simulations were completed in both the classroom and simulated field environments. All documentation was assessed for speed, completeness, and accuracy. RESULTS: Participant demographics averaged 10.8 ± 5.2 y of military service and 3.9 ± 0.6 h of training on both platforms. Classroom testing showed a significant increase in completeness (84.2 ± 8.1% versus 77.2 ± 6.9%; P = 0.02) and accuracy (77.6 ± 8.1% versus 68.9 ± 7.5%; P = 0.01) for mobile applications versus paper with no significant difference in overall time to completion (P = 0.19). Field testing again showed a significant increase in completeness (91.6 ± 5.8 % versus 70.0 ± 14.1%; P < 0.01) and accuracy (87.7 ± 7.6% versus 64.1 ± 14.4%; P < 0.01) with no significant difference in overall time to completion (P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In deployed environments, mobile applications have the potential to improve casualty care documentation completeness and accuracy with minimal additional training. These efforts will assist in meeting an urgent operational need to enable our providers.

A Deeper Dive Into Combat Medic Training.

The recent article by Knisely et al. provides a comprehensive review and summary of recent literature describing simulation techniques, training strategies, and technologies to teach medics combat casualty care skills. Some of the results reported by Knisely et al. align with the findings of our team's work, and these findings may be helpful to military leadership with their ongoing efforts to maintain medical readiness. Accordingly, we provide some additional contextual understanding to the results of Knisely et al. in this commentary. Our team recently published two papers describing the results of a large survey that examined Army medic pre-deployment training. Combining the findings of Knisely et al. along with some of the contextual information from our work, we provide some recommendations for improving and optimizing the pre-deployment training paradigm for medics.

Patterns of Palliation: A Review of Casualties That Received Pain Management Before Reaching Role 2 in Afghanistan.

INTRODUCTION: Battlefield pain management changed markedly during the first 20 years of the Global War on Terror. Morphine, long the mainstay of combat analgesia, diminished in favor of fentanyl and ketamine for military pain control, but the options are not hemodynamically or psychologically equivalent. Understanding patterns of prehospital analgesia may reveal further opportunities for combat casualty care improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Department of Defense Trauma Registry data for the Afghanistan conflict from 2005 to 2018, we examined 2,402 records of prehospital analgesia administration to assess temporal trends in medication choice and proportions receiving analgesia, including subanalysis of a cohort screened for an indication with minimal contraindication for analgesia. We further employed frequency matching to explore the presence of disparities in analgesia by casualty affiliation. RESULTS: Proportions of documented analgesia increased throughout the study period, from 0% in 2005 to 70.6% in 2018. Afghan casualties had the highest proportion of documented analgesia (53.0%), versus U.S. military (31.9%), civilian/other (23.3%), and non-U.S. military (19.3%). Fentanyl surpassed morphine in the frequency of administration in 2012. The median age of those receiving ketamine was higher (30 years) than those receiving fentanyl (26 years) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (23 years). Among the frequency-matched subanalysis, the odds ratio for ketamine administration with Afghan casualties was 1.84 (95% CI, 1.30-2.61). CONCLUSIONS: We observed heterogeneity of prehospital patient care across patient affiliation groups, suggesting possible opportunities for improvement toward an overall best practice system. General increase in documented prehospital pain management likely reflects efforts toward complete documentation, as well as improved options for analgesia. Current combat casualty care documentation does not include any standardized pain scale.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of Burn Casualties Transported by the US Army Burn Flight Team and US Air Force Critical Care Air Transport Teams.

INTRODUCTION: The US Army Burn Center, the only burn center in the Department of Defense provides comprehensive burn care. The Burn Flight Team (BFT) provides specialized burn care during transcontinental evacuation. During Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, burn injuries accounted for approximately 5% of all injuries in military personnel. To augment BFT capacity, US Air Force Critical Care Air Transport Teams (CCATTs) mobilized to transport burn patients. The purpose of this study was to describe critically ill, burn injured patients transported to the US Army Burn Center by BFT or CCATT, to compare and contrast characteristics, evacuation procedures, in-flight treatments, patient injuries/illnesses, and outcomes between the two groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of CCATT and BFT patients, admitted to the burn ICU between January 1, 2001 and September 30, 2018. Patients with total body surface area burned (TBSA) >30% were evacuated by BFT, while CCATT evacuated patients with ≤ 30% TBSA. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Of these, 40 (41%) were transported by the BFT and 57 (59%) were transported by CCATTs. Compared with patients transported by CCATTs, patients transferred by the BFT had higher median TBSA and full-thickness burn size, higher prevalence of chest, back and groin burns, and higher prevalence of inhalation injury. BFT patients had increased hospital days (62 vs. 37; P = .08), ICU days (29 vs. 12; P = .003) and ventilator days (14 vs. 6; P < .001). TBSA was the only variable significantly associated with ARDS (aOR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.08; P = 0.04), renal failure (aOR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.11; P = .002), and mortality (aOR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.13; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Evacuation by the BFT was associated with increased ICU and ventilator days, increased mortality, and a greater risk for developing renal failure. The severity of injury/TBSA likely accounted for most of these differences.

Characterization of Humanitarian Trauma Care by US Military Facilities During Combat Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize humanitarian trauma care delivered by US military treatment facilities (MTFs) in Afghanistan and Iraq during combat operations. BACKGROUND: International Humanitarian Law, which includes the Geneva Conventions, defines protections and standards of treatment to victims of armed conflicts. In 1949, these standards expanded to include injured civilians. In 2001, the Global War on Terror began in Afghanistan and expanded to Iraq in 2003. US MTFs provided care to all military forces, civilians, and enemy prisoners. A thorough understanding of the scope, epidemiology, resource requirements, and outcomes of civilian trauma in combat zones has not been previously characterized. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of the Department of Defense Trauma Registry from 2005 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were civilians and Non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Coalition Personnel (NNCP) with traumatic injuries treated at MTFs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, resource requirements, procedures, and outcomes were categorized. RESULTS: A total of 29,963 casualties were eligible from the Registry. There were 16,749 (55.9%) civilians and 13,214 (44.1%) NNCP. The majority of patients were age above 13 years [26,853 (89.6%)] and male [28,000 (93.4%)]. Most injuries were battle-related: 12,740 (76.1%) civilians and 11,099 (84.0%) NNCP. Penetrating trauma was the most common cause of both battle and nonbattle injuries: 12,293 (73.4%) civilian and 10,029 (75.9%) NNCP. Median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 9 in each cohort with ISS≥25 in 2236 (13.4%) civilians and 1398 (10.6%) NNCP. Blood products were transfused to 35% of each cohort: 5850 civilians received a transfusion with 2118 (12.6%) of them receiving ≥10 units; 4590 NNCPs received a transfusion with 1669 (12.6%) receiving ≥10 units. MTF mortality rates were civilians 1263 (7.5%) and NNCP 776 (5.9%). Interventions, both operative and nonoperative, were similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with International Humanitarian Law, as well as the US military's medical rules of eligibility, civilians injured in combat zones were provided the same level of care as NNCP. Injured civilians and NNCP had similar mechanisms of injury, injury patterns, transfusion needs, and ISS. This analysis demonstrates resource equipoise in trauma care delivered to civilians and NNCP. Hospitals in combat zones must be prepared to manage large numbers of civilian casualties with significant human and material resources allocated to optimize survival. The provision of humanitarian trauma care is resource-intensive, and these data can be used to inform planning factors for current or future humanitarian care in combat zones.

An Assessment of Nursing Skills Required for Sustaining a Casualty during Prolonged Casualty Care: Implications for Training and Preparing for the Next Major War.

BACKGROUND: The US military is transitioning rapidly from the Global War on Terrorism in preparation for near-peer combat in a multidomain operations (MDO) and/or large scale combat operations (LSCO) setting. Due to potentially contested freedom of movement in this setting, casualty evacuation may be significantly delayed, resulting in medics and other prehospital medical personnel taking on patient care duties normally performed by nurses in a hospital-based setting. However, the frequency of nursing-type care remains unclear. We seek to determine the nursing interventions typically performed in a facility with patient holding capability during the first 72 hours of care in the deployed setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a sub-analysis of previously described data from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry of US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military personnel from January 2007 to March 2020 with a focus on relevant nursing procedures identified in current Individual Critical Task Lists (ICTL) for critical care, emergency, medical-surgical nurses, and combat medics. RESULTS: Among all casualties, the most common nursing-related skills performed in the prehospital setting were wound dressing application (33%), administration of parenteral opioids (35%), and administration of ketamine (7%); in the hospital setting were preparation for transfer (60%), managing a post-operative patient (59%), and managing a traumatic brain injury (44%). In the hospital setting, most patients had a blood gas performed (73%), ventilator management occurred for 21% of patients, and administration of packed red blood cells occurred for 21% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing-type interventions were frequently required during the first 72 hours of casualty care. The frequency of the required interventions demonstrates the need for ongoing nursing skills training for medics supporting casualties in the setting of prolonged casualty care.

Characteristics of burn casualties treated at role 2 in Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: Role 2 medical treatment facilities (MTFs) are frequently located in austere settings and have limited resources. A dedicated assessment of burn casualties treated at this level of care has not been performed. Therefore, the objective of this study was to characterize burn casualties presenting to role 2 MTFs in Afghanistan, along with the procedures they required, complications, and mortality to begin understanding the resources consumed by their care. METHODS: We identified burn casualties from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR). The inclusion criteria were (1) experienced burn injuries in Afghanistan between October 2005 and April 2018 and (2) had documentation of treatment at role 2 in the DODTR. We excluded casualties with only first-degree burns, not otherwise specified burns, or only corneal burns. Casualty demographics, injury characteristics, procedures, and outcomes were reported. RESULTS: We identified 453 burn casualties with a median (interquartile range) Injury Severity Score of 10 (4-22) and percent total body surface area burned of 11 (5-30). There were 123 casualties (27.2%) with inhalation injury, and the casualties experienced 3,343 additional traumatic injuries and needed 2,530 procedures. Casualties with documentation of resuscitation information received a median (interquartile range) of 1.9 (0.7-3.7) L of crystalloid fluids. Complications were documented in 53 casualties (11.7%). Final mortality was reported in 36 casualties (8.0%), and mortality at role 2 MTFs was reported in 7 casualties (1.5%). CONCLUSION: Burn casualties had many injuries and needed many procedures, including those related to airway management, resuscitation, and wound care. Given the urgency of these procedures, ensuring that there is enough equipment and supplies will be important in the future. Although infrequent, some casualties experienced complications. Factors that may influence resuscitation include injury severity, concomitant traumatic injuries, and available supplies. Obtaining more contextual information on the patient care environment will be useful going forward. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

Predeployment training of Army medics assigned to prehospital settings.

BACKGROUND: Medics have numerous responsibilities in the combat theater, which include performing lifesaving interventions, providing basic medical and nursing care, and caring for casualties in a variety of scenarios unique to the battlefield. An evaluation of the medic predeployment training paradigm is important and will help to understand its current state and identify areas for improvement. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to perform a focused assessment of Army medic predeployment training to identify patterns that might inform future medic training. METHODS: A web-based survey was created using the Intelink.gov platform and sent by e-mail to Army medics who deployed since 2001. Medics were asked to reflect upon the predeployment training from their most recent deployment experience. There were multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and free-text response questions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: There were 254 respondents who met the study inclusion criteria. Most of the respondents had their clinical competency evaluated (68.5%, n = 174). Respondents reported several acute trauma, basic nursing, and battlefield medicine skills as being critical but also felt that many of these same skills would have benefited from additional predeployment training. Most of the respondents felt very or fully confident and prepared to provide combat casualty care (74.8%, n = 190 and 74.8%, n = 190). There were 64 respondents (25.2%) who reported feeling not at all, slightly, or moderately confident, and 54 (84.4%) of these respondents described in a free-text question wanting additional training before deployment. CONCLUSION: Respondents reported many skills as being critical to combat casualty care, but several of these skills would have benefited from additional predeployment training. Respondents with more deployment experience or completion of more predeployment training reported feeling more confident and prepared to provide combat casualty care. A common sentiment was the desire for more training of any form before deployment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level IV.

An Assessment of Pre-deployment Training for Army Nurses and Medics.

INTRODUCTION: Although military nurses and medics have important roles in caring for combat casualties, no standardized pre-deployment training curriculum exists for those in the Army. A large-scale, survey-based evaluation of pre-deployment training would help to understand its current state and identify areas for improvement. The purpose of this study was to survey Army nurses and medics to describe their pre-deployment training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Intelink.gov platform, a web-based survey was sent by e-mail to Army nurses and medics from the active and reserve components who deployed since 2001. The survey consisted of questions asking about pre-deployment training from their most recent deployment experience. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results, and free text comments were also captured. RESULTS: There were 682 respondents: 246 (36.1%) nurses and 436 (63.9%) medics. Most of the nurses (n = 132, 53.7%) and medics (n = 298, 68.3%) reported that they were evaluated for clinical competency before deployment. Common courses and topics included Tactical Combat Casualty Care, Advanced Cardiac Life Support, cultural awareness, and trauma care. When asked about the quality of their pre-deployment training, most nurses (n = 186; 75.6%) and medics (n = 359; 82.3%) indicated that their training was adequate or better. Nearly all nurses and medics reported being moderately confident or better (nurses n = 225; 91.5% and medics n = 399; 91.5%) and moderately prepared or better (nurses n = 223; 90.7% and medics n = 404; 92.7%) in their ability to provide combat casualty care. When asked if they participated in a team-based evaluation of clinical competence, many nurses (n = 121, 49.2%) and medics (n = 180, 41.3%) reported not attending a team training program. CONCLUSIONS: Most nurse and medic respondents were evaluated for clinical competency before deployment, and they attended a variety of courses that covered many topics. Importantly, most nurses and medics were satisfied with the quality of their training, and they felt confident and prepared to provide care. Although these are encouraging findings, they must be interpreted within the context of self-report, survey-based assessments, and the low response rate. Although these limitations and weaknesses of our study limit the generalizability of our results, this study attempts to address a critical knowledge gap regarding pre-deployment training of military nurses and medics. Our results may be used as a basis for conducting additional studies to gather more information on the state of pre-deployment training for nurses and medics. These studies will hopefully have a higher response rate and better quantify how many individuals received any form of pre-deployment training. Additionally, our recommendations regarding pre-deployment training that we derived from the study results may be helpful to military leadership.

CE: Trauma-Related Hemorrhagic Shock: A Clinical Review.

Optimal management of trauma-related hemorrhagic shock begins at the point of injury and continues throughout all hospital settings. Several procedures developed on the battlefield to treat this condition have been adopted by civilian health care systems and are now used in a number of nonmilitary hospitals. Despite the important role nurses play in caring for patients with trauma-related hemorrhagic shock, much of the literature on this condition is directed toward paramedics and physicians. This article discusses the general principles underlying the pathophysiology and clinical management of trauma-related hemorrhagic shock and updates readers on nursing practices used in its management.

Anatomic injury patterns in combat casualties treated by forward surgical teams.

BACKGROUND: Role 2 forward surgical teams provide damage-control resuscitation and surgery for life- and limb-threatening injuries. These teams have limited resources and personnel, so understanding the anatomic injury patterns seen by these teams is vital for providing adequate training and preparation prior to deployment. The objective of this study was to describe the spectrum of injuries treated at Role 2 facilities in Afghanistan. METHODS: Using Department of Defense Trauma Registry data, a retrospective, secondary data analysis was conducted. Eligible patients were all battle or non-battle-injured casualties treated by Role 2 forward surgical teams in Afghanistan from October 2005 to June 2018. Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005 codes were used to classify each injury and Injury Severity Score (ISS) was calculated for each patient. Patients with multiple trauma were defined as patients with an AIS severity code >2 in at least two ISS body regions. RESULTS: The data set included 10,383 eligible patients with 45,225 diagnosis entries (range, 1-27 diagnoses per patient). The largest number of injuries occurred in the lower extremity/pelvis/buttocks (23.9%). Most injuries were categorized as minor (39.4%) or moderate (38.8%) in AIS severity, while the largest number of injuries categorized as severe or worse occurred in the head (13.5%). Among head injuries, 1,872 injuries were associated with a cerebral concussion or diffuse axonal injury, including 50.6% of those injuries being associated with a loss of consciousness. There were 1,224 patients with multiple trauma, and the majority had an injury to the extremities/pelvic girdle (58.2%). Additionally, 3.7% of all eligible patients and 10.5% of all patients with multiple trauma did not survive to Role 2 discharge. CONCLUSION: The injury patterns seen in recent conflicts and demonstrated by this study may assist military medical leaders and planners to optimize forward surgical care in future environments, on a larger scale, and utilizing less resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, Level III.

Transporting Children to Safety After Volcanic Eruption.

The Fuego volcano eruption near Guatemala City, Guatemala, on June 3, 2018, left more than 150 dead and hundreds more injured or missing. Local officials quickly identified a need for burn care among the injured and asked the international community for assistance. By the morning of June 4, members of the U.S. Army's Burn Flight Team were placed on high alert in preparation for an evacuation mission to bring injured Guatemalans to the United States for specialized burn care. The mission required seven RNs, three respiratory therapists, a burn surgeon, two intensivists, an anesthesiologist, and an operations officer in order to successfully evacuate six critically injured pediatric burn patients to the Shriners Hospitals for Children-Galveston in Galveston, Texas. This article describes details of each stage of the mission and includes a discussion of key aspects of logistics and patient care posed by such evacuations.

Forward Surgical Team Procedural Burden and Non-operative Interventions by the U.S. Military Trauma System in Afghanistan, 2008-2014.

INTRODUCTION: No published study has reported non-surgical interventions performed by forward surgical teams, and there are no current surgical benchmarks for forward surgical teams. The objective of the study was to describe operative procedures and non-operative interventions received by battlefield casualties and determine the operative procedural burden on the trauma system. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of data from the Joint Trauma System Forward Surgical Team Database using battle and non-battle injured casualties treated in Afghanistan from 2008-2014. Overall procedure frequency, mortality outcome, and survivor morbidity outcome were calculated using operating room procedure codes grouped by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project classification. Cumulative attributable burden of procedures was calculated by frequency, mortality, and morbidity. Morbidity and mortality burden were used to rank procedures. RESULTS: The study population was comprised of 10,992 casualties, primarily male (97.8%), with a median age interquartile range of 25.0 (22.0-30.0). Affiliations were non-U.S. military (40.0%), U.S. military (35.1%), and others (25.0%). Injuries were penetrating (65.2%), blunt (32.8), and burns (2.0%). Casualties included 4.4% who died and 14.9% who lived but had notable morbidity findings. After ranking by contribution to trauma system morbidity and mortality burden, the top 10 of 32 procedure groups accounted for 74.4% of operative care, 77.9% of mortality, and 73.1% of unexpected morbidity findings. These procedure groups included laparotomy, vascular procedures, thoracotomy, debridement, lower and upper gastrointestinal procedures, amputation, and therapeutic procedures on muscles and upper and lower extremity bones. Most common non-operative interventions included X-ray, ultrasound, wound care, catheterization, and intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Forward surgical team training and performance improvement metrics should focus on optimizing commonly performed operative procedures and non-operative interventions. Operative procedures that were commonly performed, and those associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality, can set surgical benchmarks and outline training and skillsets needed by forward surgical teams.

A Consensus Framework for the Humanitarian Surgical Response to Armed Conflict in 21st Century Warfare.

Importance: Armed conflict in the 21st century poses new challenges to a humanitarian surgical response, including changing security requirements, access to patients, and communities in need, limited deployable surgical assets, resource constraints, and the requirement to address both traumatic injuries as well as emergency surgical needs of the population. At the same time, recent improvements in trauma care and systems have reduced injury-related mortality. This combination of new challenges and medical capabilities warrants reconsideration of long-standing humanitarian surgery protocols. Objective: To describe a consensus framework for surgical care designed to respond to this emerging need. Design, Setting, and Participants: An international group of 35 representatives from humanitarian agencies, US military, and academic trauma programs was invited to the Stanford Humanitarian Surgical Response in Conflict Working Group to engage in a structured process to review extant trauma protocols and make recommendations for revision. Main Outcomes and Measures: The working group's method adapted core elements of a modified Delphi process combined with consensus development conference from August 3 to August 5, 2018. Results: Lessons from civilian and military trauma systems as well as recent battlefield experiences in humanitarian settings were integrated into a tiered continuum of response from point of injury through rehabilitation. The framework addresses the security and medical requirements as well as ethical and legal principles that guide humanitarian action. The consensus framework includes trained, lay first responders; far-forward resuscitation/stabilization centers; rapid damage control surgical access; and definitive care facilities. The system also includes nontrauma surgical care, injury prevention, quality improvement, data collection, and predeployment training requirements. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence suggests that modern trauma systems save lives. However, the requirements of providing this standard of care in insecure conflict settings places new burdens on humanitarian systems that must provide both emergency and trauma surgical care. This consensus framework integrates advances in trauma care and surgical systems in response to a changing security environment. It is possible to reduce disparities and improve the standard of care in these settings.

High-Carbohydrate vs High-Fat Nutrition for Burn Patients.

Nutrition is an essential component of the healing and recovery process after severe burn injury. For many burn patients, nutrition support is necessary to meet nutrition goals. The ratio of carbohydrates and fat is particularly important for burn patients, as an essential fatty acid deficiency can contribute to poor wound healing. However, there is evidence to suggest that diets containing more carbohydrates and less fat may result in better patient outcomes. A literature search was conducted to identify studies related to nutrition support and macronutrient ratios in burn patients. Eleven published papers were found that considered macronutrient use in enteral and parenteral nutrition therapies among 9 different burn patient samples. No negative outcomes associated with lower fat, higher carbohydrate nutrition for severely burned patients were found in the literature. Conversely, the literature review revealed improved outcomes among severely burned patients receiving lower fat, higher carbohydrate nutrition to include fewer incidences of pneumonia, wound infections, acute respiratory distress syndrome, fatty liver, and sepsis. These patients also experienced shorter hospital length of stay and shorter wound healing times, as well as lower spleen and kidney weights, lower urinary nitrogen losses, improved nitrogen balance, higher insulin levels, higher insulin-like growth factor-1, lower cortisol, and less muscle protein breakdown. The evidence available to date supports the clinical use of nutrition support providing ≤15% fat and ≥60% carbohydrate for critically ill burn patients.

An Evidence-Based Approach to Precepting New Nurses.

While developing a standardized approach to orient new staff in the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research Burn Center at Fort Sam Houston in Texas, nurse leaders identified the need to also standardize preceptor selection and instruction. A multidisciplinary research team conducted a two-year pilot project based on the evidence-based Vermont Nurses in Partnership Clinical Transition Framework, which provides a structured method for preceptor selection, development, and evaluation. Minimum preceptor qualifications; preceptor validation processes; and modifiable, unit-specific coaching tools were established. The authors previously published a description of the preceptor program implementation process and their findings. In this article, they discuss lessons learned during the project, highlighting the challenges and obstacles encountered when implementing this preceptorship program.

Monthly variation of unfinished nursing care at the US Army Burn Center.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the monthly variation in the prevalence and patterns of unfinished nursing care and to determine the relationships between the system of nursing care and unfinished nursing care at the US Army Burn Center. METHODS: This was a repeated measures, descriptive study. For one week per month for six months, all nurses providing direct patient care on two inpatient burn units (intensive care and progressive care) were asked to complete an anonymous paper survey, which contained the Perceived Implicit Rationing of Nursing Care instrument, to estimate the prevalence of unfinished nursing care on their unit. Unit administrative data also were collected from the unit nursing leaders each month. Descriptive statistics and multilevel modeling were used in the analysis. RESULTS: Most (80.5%) eligible nurses participated at least once; 46.6% participated three or more times. A high proportion (85.7-100%) of nurses left at least one element of care unfinished; the mean number of activities left unfinished over each 7 shift period per nurse was 16.2. Only nursing care hours provided by float staff significantly predicted nurse estimates of unfinished nursing care, ß=.008, SE=.001, p<.05. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of unfinished nursing care at the US Army Burn Center was high and generally consistent with other studies of unfinished nursing care in non-burn settings. The inability to meet the demand for nursing care, as evidenced by the presence of unfinished nursing care, may be the result of a limited surge capacity. Implications for research, policy, and practice were discussed.