Evaluation of Contingency Telemedical Support to Improve Casualty Care at a Simulated Military Intermediate Resuscitation Facility: The EM-ANGEL Study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether Contingency Telemedical Support (CTS) improves the success rate and efficiency of primary care providers performing critical actions during simulated combat trauma resuscitation. Critical actions included advanced airway, chest decompression, extremity hemorrhage control, hypothermia prevention, antibiotics and analgesics, and hypotensive resuscitation, among others. BACKGROUND: Recent studies report improved survival associated with skilled triage and treatment in the out-of-hospital/preoperative phase of combat casualty care. Historically, ground combat units are assigned primary care physicians and physician assistants as medical staff, due to resource limitations. Although they are recognized as optimal resuscitators, demand for military trauma surgeons and emergency physicians exceeds supply and is unlikely to improve in the near term. METHODS: A prospective trial of telemedical mentoring during a casualty resuscitation encounter was studied using a high-fidelity patient simulator (HFPS). Subjects were randomized and formed into experimental (CTS) or control teams. CTS team leaders were equipped with a headset/microphone interface and telementored by a combat-experienced emergency physician or trauma surgeon. A standardized, scripted clinical scenario and HFPS were used with 14 critical actions. At completion, subjects were surveyed. Statistical approach included contingency table analysis, two-tailed t-test, and correlation coefficient. This study was reviewed and approved by our institutional review board (IRB). RESULTS: Eighteen CTS teams and 16 control teams were studied. By intention-to-treat ITT analysis, 89% of CTS teams versus 56% of controls completed all life-threatening inventions (LSIs) (p<.01); 78% versus 19% completed all critical actions (p<.01); and 89% versus 56% established advanced airways within 8 minutes (p<.06). Average time to completion in minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] 95) was 12 minutes (10?14) for CTS versus 18 (16?20) for controls, with 75% of control teams not completing all critical actions. CONCLUSION: In this model, real-time telementoring of simulated trauma resuscitation was feasible and improved accuracy and efficiency of non?emergency-trained resuscitators. Clinical validation and replicated study of these findings for guiding remote damage control resuscitation are warranted.

Analysis of remote trauma transfers in South Central Texas with comparison with current US combat operations: results of the RemTORN-I study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze demographic, epidemiologic, temporal, and outcome data from an integrated trauma registry of patients undergoing initial stabilization and transfer within a mature domestic trauma network; compare data with a companion subset from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry. Texas Trauma Service Area-P is composed of 25 counties, 15 rural Level IV trauma centers (no acute care surgery), and two Level I trauma centers. METHODS: This study has a retrospective cohort design. We hypothesize that Injury Severity Scores (ISSs), time intervals, and other clinical indicators would be complimentary to contemporary combat casualties. Inclusion criteria include age 18 years to 80 years, transferred from Level IV to Level I trauma center, or expired en route. RESULTS: A total of 543 subjects (84%) met the criteria and were analyzed. Averages and confidence intervals were as follows: age of 40 years (38-41 years), males at 81%, ISS of 10 (10-11), intensive care unit stay of 2 days (1-3 days), and hospital stay of 5 days (4-6 days). Mechanisms of injury were as follows: penetrating (15%), blunt weapon (19%), stabs (9%), burns (5%), and gunshots (5%). Eight percent received blood within the first 24 hours. Survival was at 98%. Time intervals (95% confidence interval) were as follows: prehospital at 1:43 (1:29-1:58), Level IV dwell time at 3:17 (3:06-3:28), interfacility transfer at 1:43 (1:36-1:49), and total at 6:39 (6:20-6:58). RemTORN cases were older, spent longer time en route to Level I, and had ISS similar to combat casualties. Rates of blood transfusion in the first 24 hours and survival were similar in order of magnitude. CONCLUSION: The RemTORN platform is operational. Demographic, epidemiologic, and temporal characteristics as observed will support clinical investigations of traumatic coagulopathy, shock, and potential interventions before Level I arrival. Results of such investigations will likely be applicable to the contemporary and future battlefield.