Military and Civilian Trauma System Integration: A Global Case Series.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic injury is a leading cause of morbidity globally, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In high-income countries (HICs), it is well documented that military and civilian integration can positively impact trauma care in both healthcare systems, but it is unknown if this synergy could benefit LMICs. This case series examines the variety of integration between the civilian and military systems of various countries and international partnerships to elucidate if there are commonalities in facilitators and barriers. METHODS: A convenience sampling method was utilized to identify subject matter experts on civilian and military trauma system integration. Data were collected and coded through an iterative process, focusing on the historical impetuses and subsequent outcomes of civilian and military trauma care collaboration. RESULTS: Eight total case studies were completed, five addressing specific countries and three addressing international partnerships. Themes which emerged as drivers for integration included history of conflict, geography, and skill maintenance for military physicians. High-level government support was a central theme for successful integration, and financial issues were often seen as the greatest barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Various approaches in civilian-military integration exist throughout the world, and the studied nations and international partnerships demonstrated similar motivators and barriers to integration. This study highlights the need for further investigation, particularly in LMICs, where less is known about integration strategies.

Density of Health Workforce Correlates to Disease Outcomes: Evidence From Global Data in Otolaryngology.

Objective: To better understand the impact of the otolaryngology-specific workforce on the burden of related diseases. Study Design: Retrospective analysis of existing workforce density data as compared with the incidence, mortality, and morbidity data for 4 otolaryngologic diseases. Setting: An overall 138 countries with known otolaryngology-head and neck surgery workforce and epidemiologic data. Methods: We obtained raw data on workforce estimates of ear, nose, and throat surgical specialists from the World Health Organization. Disease burdens for 4 conditions were estimated via 2 ratios, the mortality:incidence ratio (MIR) and YLD:incidence ratio (years lost to disability), as specified in the Global Burden of Disease database. These were correlated to country-specific otolaryngologist density data in univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Increased density of the ear, nose, and throat workforce correlated with better outcomes for otolaryngologic-treated surgical diseases. A 10% increase in otolaryngology workforce density was associated with a 0.27% reduction in YLD:incidence ratio for chronic otitis media, a 0.94% reduction in MIR for lip and oral cavity cancer, a 1.46% reduction in MIR for laryngeal cancer, and a 1.34% reduction in MIR for pharyngeal cancer (all P < .001)-an effect that remained after adjustment for health systems factors for all conditions but chronic otitis media. Conclusion: The density of the surgical workforce is assumed to affect disease outcomes, but ours is the first analysis to show that increased workforce density for a specific surgical specialty correlates with improved disease outcomes. While there is a consensus to increase access to health care providers, quantifying the effect on disease outcomes is an important metric for those performing health economics modeling, particularly where resources are limited.