Prevention of injury and violence in the USA.

In the first three decades of life, more individuals in the USA die from injuries and violence than from any other cause. Millions more people survive and are left with physical, emotional, and financial problems. Injuries and violence are not accidents; they are preventable. Prevention has a strong scientific foundation, yet efforts are not fully implemented or integrated into clinical and community settings. In this Series paper, we review the burden of injuries and violence in the USA, note effective interventions, and discuss methods to bring interventions into practice. Alliances between the public health community and medical care organisations, health-care providers, states, and communities can reduce injuries and violence. We encourage partnerships between medical and public health communities to consistently frame injuries and violence as preventable, identify evidence-based interventions, provide scientific information to decision makers, and strengthen the capacity of an integrated health system to prevent injuries and violence.

Improving the Health and Readiness of Military Women.

WHY THE DEFENSE HEALTH HORIZONS DID THIS STUDY: Women comprise approximately one-fifth of the total force in the U.S. Military. Gynecologic and reproductive health issues not only affect the health and wellness of individual servicewomen but may also impact the mission of the DoD. Unintended pregnancies can result in adverse maternal and infant outcomes and can negatively impact the careers of military women and mission readiness. Gynecologic conditions such as abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids, and endometriosis can also limit women's optimal health and performance, and a significant proportion of military women have indicated their desire to manage and/or suppress menstrual cycles, especially when deployed. Access to the full range of contraceptive methods is an important strategy to allow women to achieve their reproductive goals and address other health concerns. This report reviews rates of unintended pregnancy and contraceptive utilization among servicewomen and examines factors that influence these measures of health. WHAT DEFENSE HEALTH HORIZONS FOUND: Overall rates of unintended pregnancy are higher among servicewomen than the general population and rates of contraceptive use among servicewomen are lower than the general population. Congress mandates that servicewomen have access to contraceptive options, but the DoD has not established target measures for contraceptive access and use, unlike that present for the civilian population. WHAT DEFENSE HEALTH HORIZONS RECOMMENDS: Four potential courses of action are proposed to improve the health and readiness of military women.Recommendation 1: The Military Health System (MHS) should develop and maintain reliable sources of data to assess the gynecologic health of servicewomen, including rates of unintended pregnancy.Recommendation 2: When menstrual suppression, treatment for a medical condition, or contraception is desired, servicewomen should have ready access to the information they need to select the option that is best suited for their personal preferences and situation.Recommendation 3: In order to ensure that servicewomen have optimal access to the full range of contraceptive methods, the MHS should determine true access at all their facilities and identify actions to address any barriers.Recommendation 4: The MHS should establish service delivery targets for use of women's preventive health services, particularly contraception, to prevent unintended pregnancies.

Assuring TRICARE Coverage of Preventive Health Services for Women Beneficiaries of the Military Health System.

WHY DEFENSE HEALTH HORIZONS PERFORMED THIS STUDY: The primary role of the Military Health System is to assure readiness by protecting the health of the force by providing expert care to wounded, ill, and injured service members. In addition to this mission, the Military Health System (both directly through its own personnel and indirectly, through TRICARE) provides health services to millions of military family members, retirees, and their dependents. Women's preventive health services are an important part of comprehensive health care to reduce rates of disease and premature death and were included in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) expanded coverage of women's preventive health services, based on the best available evidence and guidelines. These guidelines were updated by the Health Resources and Services Administrations and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2016. However, TRICARE is not subject to the ACA, and therefore, TRICARE's provisions or the access of TRICARE's female beneficiaries to women's preventive health services was not directly changed by the ACA. This report compares women's reproductive health care coverage under TRICARE with coverage available to women enrolled in civilian health insurance plans subject to the 2010 ACA. WHAT DEFENSE HEALTH HORIZONS RECOMMENDS: Three recommendations are proposed to ensure that women who are TRICARE beneficiaries have access to and receive preventive reproductive health services that are consistent with Health Resources and Services Administration recommendations as implemented in the ACA. Each recommendation has strengths and weaknesses that are described in detail in the body of this paper. WHAT DEFENSE HEALTH HORIZONS FOUND: In covering contraceptive drugs and devices, TRICARE appears to reflect the scope of coverage found in ACA-compliant plans but, by not incorporating the term "all FDA-approved methods" of contraception, TRICARE leaves open the possibility that a narrower definition could be adopted at a future date. There are important differences in how TRICARE and ACA-compliant plans address reproductive counseling and health screening, including TRICARE's more restrictive counseling benefit and some limits to preventive screening. By not aligning with policies related to the provision of clinical preventive services established under the ACA, TRICARE allows health care providers in purchased care to diverge from evidence-based guidelines. Although the ACA respects medical judgment when providing women's preventive services, standards restrict the extent to which health care systems and providers can depart from evidence-based screening and prevention guidelines essential to optimizing quality, cost, and patient outcomes.

Graduate Medical Education in the Military Health System: Strategic Analysis and Options.

INTRODUCTION: At the request of then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Dr. Jonathan Woodson, Defense Health Horizons (DHH) examined options for shaping Graduate Medical Education (GME) in the Military Health System (MHS) in order to achieve the goals of a medically ready force and a ready medical force. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DHH interviewed service GME directors, key designated institutional officials, and subject-matter experts on GME in the military and civilian health care systems. RESULTS: This report proposes numerous short- and long-term courses of action in three areas:1. Balancing the allocation of GME resources to suit the needs of active duty and garrisoned troops. We recommend developing a clear, tri-service mission and vision for GME in the MHS and expanding collaborations with outside institutions in order to prepare an optimal mix of physicians and ensure that trainees meet requirements for clinical experience.2. Improving the recruitment and tracking of GME students, as well as the management of accessions. We recommend several measures to improve the quality of incoming students, to track the performance of students and medical schools, and to foster a tri-service approach to accessions.3. Aligning MHS with the tenets of the Clinical Learning Environment Review to advance a culture of safety and to help the MHS become a high reliability organization (HRO). We recommend several actions to strengthen patient care and residency training and to develop a systematic approach to MHS management and leadership. CONCLUSION: Graduate Medical Education (GME) is vital to produce the future physician workforce and medical leadership of the MHS. It also provides the MHS with clinically skilled manpower. Graduate Medical Education (GME) research sows the seeds for future discoveries to improve combat casualty care and other priority objectives of the MHS. Although readiness is the MHS's top mission, GME is also vital to meeting the other three components of the quadruple aim (better health, better care, and lower costs). Properly managed and adequately resourced GME can accelerate the transformation of the MHS into an HRO. Based on our analysis, DHH believes that there are numerous opportunities for MHS leadership to strengthen GME so it is more integrated, jointly coordinated, efficient, and productive. All physicians emerging from military GME should understand and embrace team-based practice, patient safety, and a systems-oriented focus. This will ensure that those we prepare to be the military physicians of the future are prepared to meet the needs of the line, to protect the health and safety of deployed warfighters, and to provide expert and compassionate care to garrisoned service members, families, and military retirees.

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group. METHODS: We randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys. RESULTS: The reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%). CONCLUSION: Emergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.

Developing and implementing a multispecialty graduate medical education curriculum on Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT).

The authors sought to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of initiating a Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol and other drug use curriculum across multiple residency programs. SBIRT project faculty in the internal medicine (traditional, primary care internal medicine, medicine/pediatrics), psychiatry, obstetrics and gynecology, emergency medicine, and pediatrics programs were trained in performing and teaching SBIRT. The SBIRT project faculty trained the residents in their respective disciplines, accommodating discipline-specific implementation issues and developed a SBIRT training Web site. Post-training, residents were observed performing SBIRT with a standardized patient. Measurements included number of residents trained, performance of SBIRT in clinical practice, and training satisfaction. One hundred and ninety-nine residents were trained in SBIRT: 98 internal medicine, 35 psychiatry, 18 obstetrics and gynecology, 21 emergency medicine, and 27 pediatrics residents. To date, 338 self-reported SBIRT clinical encounters have occurred. Of the 196 satisfaction surveys completed, the mean satisfaction score for the training was 1.60 (1 = very satisfied to 5 = very dissatisfied). Standardized patient sessions with SBIRT project faculty supervision were the most positive aspect of the training and length of training was a noted weakness. Implementation of a graduate medical education SBIRT curriculum in a multispecialty format is feasible and acceptable. Future efforts focusing on evaluation of resident SBIRT performance and sustainability of SBIRT are needed.

Brief intervention for hazardous and harmful drinkers in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of emergency practitioner-performed brief intervention for hazardous/harmful drinkers in reducing alcohol consumption and negative consequences in an emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial (Project ED Health) was conducted in an urban ED from May 2002 to November 2003 for hazardous/harmful drinkers. Patients 18 years or older who screened above National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism guidelines for "low-risk" drinking or presented with an injury in the setting of alcohol ingestion were eligible. The mean number of drinks per week and binge-drinking episodes during the past 30 days were collected at 6 and 12 months; negative consequences and use of treatment services, at 12 months. A Brief Negotiation Interview performed by emergency practitioners was compared to scripted Discharge Instructions. RESULTS: A total of 494 hazardous/harmful drinkers were studied. The 2 groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics. In the Brief Negotiation Interview group, the mean number of drinks per week at 12 months was 3.8 less than the 13.6 reported at baseline. The Discharge Instructions group decreased 2.6 from 12.4 at baseline. Likewise, binge-drinking episodes per month decreased by 2.0 from a baseline of 6.0 in the Brief Negotiation Interview group and 1.5 from 5.4 in the Discharge Instructions group. For each outcome, the time effect was significant and the treatment effect was not. CONCLUSION: Among ED patients with hazardous/harmful drinking, we did not detect a difference in efficacy between emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview and Discharge Instructions. Further studies to test the efficacy of brief intervention in the ED are needed.

Intravenous morphine plus ketorolac is superior to either drug alone for treatment of acute renal colic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of intravenous ketorolac, morphine, and both drugs in combination in reducing pain in acute renal colic. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial in an urban, teaching emergency department. Patients aged 18 to 55 years and with a clinical diagnosis of acute renal colic and a pain rating greater than 5 on a 10-cm visual analogue scale or at least "moderate pain" on a 4-category verbal pain scale were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were contraindication to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opiates, a history of drug dependence, presence of peritonitis, or analgesics within 6 hours of presentation. Patients received either morphine 5 mg at time zero and 5 mg at 20 minutes, ketorolac 15 mg at time zero and 15 mg at 20 minutes, or a combination of both. Primary outcomes were pain reduction and the need for rescue analgesia at 40 minutes. RESULTS: Of the 555 consecutive patients screened, 158 patients met inclusion criteria and 130 patients were randomized during 6 months. Mean difference in change in pain score (visual analog scale 40 minutes minus visual analog scale 0 minutes) between combination group and morphine group was 1.8 cm (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.3 to -0.1) and, compared to the ketorolac group, was 2.2 cm (95% CI -3.7 to -0.5); P<.003. Patients with combination therapy were less likely to require rescue morphine compared to the morphine group (odds ratio 0.2; 95% CI 0.1 to 0.7; P=.007). CONCLUSION: A combination of morphine and ketorolac offered pain relief superior to either drug alone and was associated with a decreased requirement for rescue analgesia.

Injury prevention.

Emergency medicine plays a significant role in injury prevention through the use of public health models that link injury data to prevention programming, research, and advocacy. The day-to-day experiences in the emergency department provide a picture of the injury problem in a given community and give the emergency practitioner a real-world basis for injury prevention efforts. This article covers the basics or injury prevention, including defining the problem, discussing data and conceptual aspects of injury prevention, and systematically identifying successful approach to reducing the burden of injuries.

Preventive care in the emergency department: screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems in the emergency department: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the medical literature in order to determine the strength of the recommendation for screening and brief intervention (SBI) for alcohol-related problems in the emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: The review followed the methodology of systematic reviews and was facilitated through the use of a structured template, a companion explanatory piece, and a grading and methodological scoring system based on published criteria for critical appraisal. The primary outcome measure was the prevention of mortality and morbidity secondary to alcohol-related illnesses/injuries. The secondary outcome measures included: decreased consumption; fewer ED/outpatient visits and hospitalizations; a decrease in social consequences; and increased referrals for follow-up and/or treatment. Three Medline searches as well as a search of the Cochrane Library were performed. Two team members reviewed the abstracts and selected pertinent articles. References were screened for additional pertinent articles. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles were identified and reviewed, in addition to the 14 primary articles included in the 1996 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Report. The study populations were diverse, including inpatient, outpatient, and college settings, with ages ranging from 12 to 70 years. Four studies were ED-based and two included EDs as one of multiple sites. Thirty-nine studies on SBI, 30 randomized controlled and nine cohort, were used to formulate the current recommendation. A positive effect of the intervention was demonstrated in 32 of these studies. CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend that SBI for alcohol-related problems in the ED be incorporated into clinical practice.

Compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.

UNLABELLED: Little is known about gaps in quality and the extent to which clinical standards are used in emergency department (ED) practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether ED practitioners comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for diagnosing and treating sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of ED visits was conducted at an urban teaching hospital. Using ICD-9 codes, urethritis, cervicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), gonorrhea, and chlamydia cases seen from May 1, 2000, to February 28, 2001, were identified. Documentation of components of the history, physical examination, diagnostic testing, prescribed antibiotics, and discharge instructions necessary to comply with the CDC guidelines were abstracted. This set of comprehensive criteria was compared with a less stringent subset of selected criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six patient visits were identified, and 203 (83%) were included. Forty-eight men and 155 women were included: 48 (24%) with urethritis, 34 (17%) with cervicitis, and 121 (60%) with PID. For urethritis, cervicitis, and PID, respectively, there was documentation of compliance with indicators related to the following: history 73%, 15%, and 14%; physical examinations 63%, 15%, and 22%; diagnostic testing 79%, 71%, and 71%; antibiotic use 33%, 32%, and 32%; and safe sex instructions 50%, 18%, and 15% of the time. Men were more likely to receive safe sex instructions (p < or = 0.01). Total (100%) compliance in all five domains occurred 8% of the time for urethritis, 3% for cervicitis, and never for PID. The rates of 100% compliance were not significantly different when a subset of selected criteria was used. CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in adherence to recommended guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of STDs exist in ED practice.

The saliva strip test is an accurate method to determine blood alcohol concentration in trauma patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of alcohol saliva testing (AST) in trauma patients. METHODS: Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was measured by using both AST (QED A350; STC Technologies, Bethlehem, PA) and blood serum levels in 100 trauma patients admitted to the emergency department of an urban Level 1 trauma center. RESULTS: All 41 patients who tested positive for BAC on AST (mean [+/-SD]: 167.9 +/- 16.16; range: 20-350 mg/dL) also tested positive on serum determination (mean: 197.6 +/- 13.79; range: 22-446 mg/dL). Correlation between the two positive tests was significant (0.879, p < 0.001). Of the remaining 61 patients, 59 tested negative on both tests, while two patients with BACs of <30 mg/dL tested negative on the AST. For 18 patients with blood in the oropharynx, there was a correlation of 0.976 (p < 0.001, two-tailed) between serum and AST tests. CONCLUSIONS: The AST method of measuring BAC in trauma patients is accurate. Blood in the oral cavity did not appear to affect the accuracy of the test.

What it takes for Congress to act.

A thriving democracy requires engaged citizens. Although voting is one aspect of participating in the democratic process, it is not sufficient if one wishes to be truly involved in shaping and influencing policy. Congress, the body of elected officials representing the citizenry, works not just for the people but also with the people. Working with Congress requires participation--as experts, as advocates, and as citizens who have an interest in their community. This article is aimed at those who wish to actively work with the Congress. Thus, instead of giving a comprehensive description of Congress, it focuses on those aspects that are essential to effective advocacy. Part 1 presents basic information about the structure of Congress and the nature of the legislative process. Part 2 presents some observations about the basic structure and process that have implications for advocates. Part 3 translates these observations into concrete strategies for effective advocacy.

The future of injury and violence prevention: where are we going?

As we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the National Center for Injury Prevention (NCIPC) and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we are looking at the possibilities for progress in the next decade and beyond. We face many challenges, but through collaboration, innovation and creativity, we can meet the challenges ahead and ensure that the field of injury and violence prevention continues to work toward the goal of allowing people to live their lives injury and violence free.

NCIPC's contribution to global injury and violence prevention: past, present, and future.

UNLABELLED: Injuries and violence impact millions across the globe each year. For the past 20 years, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has assembled the largest cadre of injury and violence prevention experts in the world to reduce the burden of injuries and violence domestically and to inform global injury and violence prevention efforts. This article focuses on NCIPC's global injury and violence prevention work that involves: increasing awareness of the preventability of injury and violence, partnerships to promote injury research and best practices; establishing standards and guidance for data collection; building capacity through training and mentoring; and supporting evidence-based strategies. To decrease the global burden, the authors propose priority setting to maximize the development and sustainability of financial and human resources for injury and violence prevention. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The authors call for increased capacity and resources for global injury and violence prevention.

History of Injury and Violence as public health problems and emergence of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at CDC.

Injuries and violence are among the oldest health problems facing humans. Only within the past 50 years, however, has the problem been addressed with scientific rigor using public health methods. The field of injury control began as early as 1913, but wasn't approached systematically or epidemiologically until the 1940s and 1950s. It accelerated rapidly between 1960 and 1985. Coupled with active federal and state interest in reducing injuries and violence, this period was marked by important medical, scientific, and public health advances. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) was an outgrowth of this progress and in 2012 celebrated its 20th anniversary. NCIPC was created in 1992 after a series of government reports identified injury as one of the most important public health problems facing the nation. Congressional action provided the impetus for the creation of NCIPC as the lead federal agency for non-occupational injury and violence prevention. In subsequent years, NCIPC and its partners fostered many advances and built strong capacity. Because of the tragically high burden and cost of injuries and violence in the United States and around the globe, researchers, practitioners, and decision makers will need to redouble prevention efforts in the next 20 years. This article traces the history of injury and violence prevention as a public health priority-- including the evolution and current structure of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.