Global assessment of military and civilian trauma systems integration: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of trauma disproportionately affects low-income countries and middle-income countries (LMIC), with variability in trauma systems between countries. Military and civilian healthcare systems have a shared interest in building trauma capacity for use during peace and war. However, in LMICs it is largely unknown if and how these entities work together. Understanding the successful integration of these systems can inform partnerships that can strengthen trauma care. This scoping review aims to identify examples of military-civilian trauma systems integration and describe the methods, domains, and indicators associated with integration including barriers and facilitators. METHODS: A scoping review of all appropriate databases was performed to identify papers with evidence of military and civilian trauma systems integration. After manuscripts were selected for inclusion, relevant data was extracted and coded into methods of integration, domains of integration, and collected information regarding indicators of integration, which were further categorized into facilitators or barriers. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies were included with authors from 18 countries describing experiences in 23 countries. There was a predominance of authorship and experiences from High-Income Countries (91.9 and 75.7%, respectively). Five key domains of integration were identified; Academic Integration was the most common (45.9%). Among indicators, the most common facilitator was administrative support and the lack of this was the most common barrier. The most common method of integration was Collaboration (50%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence demonstrates the existence of military and civilian trauma systems integration in several countries. High-income country data dominates the literature, and thus a more robust understanding of trauma systems integration, inclusive of all geographic locations and income statuses, is necessary prior to development of a framework to guide integration. Nonetheless, the facilitators identified in this study describe the factors and environment in which integration is feasible and highlight optimal indicators of entry.

Acute Simple Elbow Dislocations in the United States: An Epidemiological Analysis of Trends Including COVID-19.

Background Elbows are one of the most frequently dislocated large joints; however, there is limited epidemiological data, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study characterizes elbow dislocations presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) over the last decade. Methods This study is a cross-sectional, descriptive, epidemiologic analysis of isolated elbow dislocations presenting to EDs from 2011-2020 using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database. Patients under 10, those with radial head subluxation, and those with complex fractures were excluded. Data on incidence ratios, patient demographics, mechanisms of injury, and incident locales were analyzed. Results Approximately 83,996 simple, primary elbow dislocations occurred from 2011-2020 (n=2,328), generating an incidence of 2.98/100,000 person-years. Incidence was higher among males (3.26 versus 2.69/100,000 person-years). Dislocations peaked in patients aged 10-19, with higher rates in males (11.12 versus 5.31/100,000 person-years; injury rate ratio 2.09, CI=2.05-2.14, p<0.001). Rates of elbow dislocations decreased with age in males (age 20-29=11.12, age >80=0.63/100,000) but increased in females over 40 (age 40-49=1.59, age 70-79=2.83/100,000). Athletic activities accounted for 55% of dislocations (n=45,902), with 15% from football and 14% from wrestling. The fewest annual dislocations occurred during COVID-19 (n=6440). Injuries occurring at schools and during contact and indoor sports decreased, while those from soccer increased. Conclusions Elbow dislocations are common, with trends of decreasing incidence with age among men and increasing incidence in women over 40. COVID-19 impacted sports-related and epidemiologic injury patterns. Ultimately, understanding population-level risks for elbow dislocations enables orthopaedic surgeons to predict injury trends and conceive educational preventative measures.

Evaluation of a Military Global Health Engagement Mission for Critical Wartime Surgical Specialty Readiness.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical volume at Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) has been gradually decreasing for roughly the past 2 decades. The Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) Clinical Readiness Program linked surgical volume and readiness using a tool known as the KSA metric. However, the extent to which military medical missions contribute to the readiness of critical wartime specialties has not been evaluated using this metric. METHODS: In this study, a retrospective analysis was conducted using the surgical case logs from the US Naval Ship (USNS) Comfort missions in 2018 and 2019. The comprehensive case log data were categorized by year, surgeon, procedure, and location. The analysis focused on providing detailed descriptive statistics, including percentages pertaining to the types of procedures performed during these missions. The 2018 mission was 11 weeks in duration, and supported activities in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, and Honduras. The USNS Comfort mission in 2019 lasted 6 months (June-November 2019), and visited 12 countries in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. RESULTS: The 2019 mission case log, spanning 6 months, was evaluated using the KSA score in order to assess readiness and compare against 6 months of MTF KSA values within the same calendar year. In 2019, the orthopedic surgeon aboard the USNS Comfort had a total KSA score of 44,006, but the 6-month USNS Comfort mission only contributed 5,364 points (12% of the annual score). The general surgery practice aboard the USNS Comfort produced lower KSA scores compared to each surgeon's respective MTF practice (Table III). Analyzing the cases logged by general surgeons also highlights minimal surgical diversity during these missions, with more than 90% of cases being hernia repairs or laparoscopic cholecystectomies (Table I). In addition, 35% of total procedures performed in 2018 and 2019 were performed laparoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of operative data from the 2019 USNS Comfort mission, in comparison with the surgeons' work at their respective MTFs, reveals limited benefit in the ability of hospital-ship missions to bolster surgical readiness as measured by the KSA score. However, this is not a reflection on the value of Global Health Engagement (GHE) itself but a review of the way in which it is leveraged to support surgical readiness. Military surgeons participate in GHE as part of a larger strategy to strengthen relationships with partner nations, improve military medical force interoperability, and bolster partner nation medical capacity and capabilities. The KSA score offers an excellent tool to compare readiness metrics across significantly different GHE missions, and facilitates the opportunity for future prospective studies to improve case volume, diversity, and ultimately readiness.