Mobility Solutions After a Lower Extremity Fracture and Applicability to Battlefield and Wilderness Medicine.

The potential for delayed evacuation of injured Service members from austere environments highlights the need to develop solutions that can stabilize a wound and enable mobility during these prolonged casualty care (PCC) scenarios. Lower extremity fractures have traditionally been treated by immobilization (splinting) followed by air evacuation - a paradigm not practical in PCC scenarios. In the civilian sector, treatment of extremity injuries sustained during remote recreational activities have similar challenges, particularly when adverse weather or terrain precludes early ground or air rescue. This review examines currently available fracture treatment solutions to include splinting, orthotic devices, and biological interventions and evaluates their feasibility: 1) for prolonged use in austere environments and 2) to enable patient mobilization. This review returned three common types of splints to include: a simple box splint, pneumatic splints, and traction splints. None of these splinting techniques allowed for ambulation. However, fixed facility-based orthotic interventions that include weight-bearing features may be combined with common splinting techniques to improve mobility. Biologically-focused technologies to stabilize a long bone fracture are still in their infancy. Integrating design features across these technologies could generate advanced treatments which would enable mobility, thus maximizing survivability until patient evacuation is feasible.

Common fall-risk indicators are not associated with fall prevalence in a high-functioning military population with lower limb trauma.

BACKGROUND: Persons with lower limb trauma are at high risk for falls. Although there is a wide range of measures used to assess stability and fall-risk that include performance measures, temporal-spatial gait parameters, and nonlinear dynamic stability calculations, these measures are typically derived from fall-prone populations, such as older adults. Thus, it is unclear if these commonly used fall-risk indicators are effective at evaluating fall-risk in a younger, higher-functioning population of Service members with lower limb trauma. METHODS: Twenty-one Service members with lower limb trauma completed a battery of fall-risk assessments that included performance measures (e.g., four-square-step-test), and gait parameters (e.g., step width, step length, step time) and dynamic stability measures (e.g., local divergence exponents) during 10 min of treadmill walking. Participants also reported the number of stumbles and falls over the previous 4 weeks. Negative Binomial and Quasibinomial Regressions were used to evaluate the strength of associations between fall-risk indicators and self-reported falls. FINDING: Participants reported on average stumbling 6(4) times and falling 2(3) times in the previous 4 weeks. At least one fall was reported by 62% of the participants. None of the fall-risk indicators were significantly associated with fall prevalence in this population of Service members with lower limb trauma (p > 0.1). INTERPRETATION: Despite the high number of reported falls in this young active population, none of the fall-risk indicators investigated effectively captured and quantified the fall-risk. Further research is needed to identify appropriate fall-risk assessments for young, high-functioning individuals with lower limb trauma.

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Identifying Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors in the Decision to Return to Duty Following Lower Extremity Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation research of wounded service members (SMs) commonly focuses on physical ability to return to duty (RTD) as a measure of successful recovery. However, numerous factors or barriers may influence a SM's ability and/or desire to RTD after lower extremity musculoskeletal trauma. SMs themselves as well as the clinical care team that works with them daily, often for years at a time, both offer unique perspectives on the influential factors that weigh into decisions to RTD. The purpose of this study was to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors patients and clinicians recognized as influencing the decision to RTD after severe lower extremity trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two SMs with severe lower extremity trauma (amputation and lower limb salvage) and 30 providers with at least 2 years' experience caring for SMs with similar injuries participated separately in either a SM or provider/clinician focus group. Open-ended questions on factors influencing RTD and other rehabilitation success were discussed. Data analysis consisted of qualitative transcription and participatory active sorting, followed by thematic coding and grouping of qualitative data. RESULTS: Individual (health condition, personal traits, and career consideration), interpersonal (clinician's impact, family influence, and peer influence), health care system (systems of care, transdisciplinary rehabilitation, and innovation availability), and institutional (policy, benefits, and unit/commander) themes emerged amongst SM patients and clinicians. Expected frequently occurring themes common to both groups were the influence of the team and family unit, as well as career trajectory options after a severe injury. An unexpected theme was acknowledgment of and dissatisfaction with the recent dismantling of institutional systems that support wounded SMs. Patients placed less emphasis on severity of injury and greater emphasis on system and policy barriers than did clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Characterization and classification of these clinician and SM-identified factors that influence the decision to RTD after severe lower extremity trauma is expected to improve the efficacy of future rehabilitation efforts and clinical practice guidelines by providing the clinical team the knowledge necessary to recognize modifiable barriers to patient success. A better understanding of factors influencing RTD decision-making may support policies for mitigating RTD barriers, better monitoring of the changing landscape of RTD after lower extremity trauma, improving systems of health care, and/or reducing turnover and facilitating force readiness.

Inclusion of a Military-specific, Virtual Reality-based Rehabilitation Intervention Improved Measured Function, but Not Perceived Function, in Individuals with Lower Limb Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Lower extremity injury is common in the military and can lead to instability, pain, and decreased function. Military service also places high physical demands on service members (SMs). Standard treatment interventions often fail to align with these unique demands. Thus, the goal of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a military-specific virtual reality-based rehabilitation (VR) intervention supplemental to standard care (SC) in improving military performance in SMs with lower extremity injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of an institutional review board-approved randomized control trial, SMs receiving care at an advanced rehabilitation center were randomized to receive either SC or VR in addition to SC (VR+SC). Participants were evaluated before treatment and ∼3 weeks later using a previously developed and validated military-specific assessment. Perceived improvement in physical function was measured using a Global Rating of Change (GROC) questionnaire. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the effects of adding VR on the military-specific assessment measures. Linear regression was used to determine the relationship between perceived improvement, measured improvement, and VR volume. RESULTS: The VR+SC group was able to traverse a greater distance in the assessment following the VR intervention. There was no significant difference in GROC between groups. For the VR+SC group, change in distance completed was not correlated with GROC, but GROC was correlated with VR volume. CONCLUSION: VR improved the distance that participants were able to traverse in the assessment. However, the VR+SC group demonstrated a disconnect between their perceived functional improvement as measured by the GROC and functional improvement as measured by the change in the distance completed. Rather, the perceived improvement appears to be more correlated with the volume of VR received. The way in which the treatment progression is structured and communicated may influence how patients perceive their change in physical function.

Healthcare providers' experiences screening for intimate partner violence among migrant and seasonal farmworking women: A phenomenological study.

BACKGROUND: Migrant and seasonal farmworking (MSFW) women patients experience substantially more intimate partner violence (IPV) than the general population, but few health-care providers screen patients for IPV. While researchers have examined screening practices in health-care settings, none have exclusively focused on MSFW women. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this phenomenological study was to explore the experiences of health-care providers who have screened for and/or addressed IPV with MSFW women patients. DESIGN: Researchers utilized descriptive phenomenology to capture the lived experiences of these health-care providers. Data were analysed using Colaizzi's seven-stage framework. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted with nine female participants - all of whom: (i) were clinically active health-care providers within the MSFW community, (ii) were bilingual in English and Spanish or had access to a translator, (iii) had treated MSFW patients who had experienced IPV and (iv) were at least 18 years of age. RESULTS: Participants' experiences were reflected in four emergent themes: (i) provider-centered factors, (ii) patient-centered factors, (iii) clinic-centered factors and (iv) community-centered factors. Participants described barriers to establish routine IPV assessment, decrease patient ambivalence and increase on-site support and community resources. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study aimed to generate a greater understanding of the experiences of health-care providers with screening for and addressing IPV with MSFW patients. Implications and recommendations for research, clinical practice and policy are provided.

Intimate partner violence screening among migrant/seasonal farmworker women and healthcare: a policy brief.

Migrant and seasonal farm working (MSFW) women report higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) as compared to the national average (Hazen and Soriano in Violence Against Women 13:562-582, 2007). Although prior researchers have indicated that implementing IPV screenings in healthcare settings significantly increases rates of identifying IPV (Nelson et al. in Ann Intern Med 156:1-17, 2012; Ramsay et al. in Br Med J 325:314-318, 2002); many providers opt not to screen (Jonassen and Mazor in Acad Med 78(10):S20-S23, 2003; Smith et al. in Fam Community Health 20:1-18, 1998). The purpose of this policy brief is to review previous research related to IPV among MSFW women and, based on the findings, recommend policies that may help to improve the detection, intervention, resources, and available science with respect to this underserved population.