Department of Defense Trauma Registry Infectious Disease Module Impact on Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Trauma System (JTS) is a DoD Center of Excellence for Military Health System trauma care delivery and the DoD's reference body for trauma care in accordance with National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Through the JTS, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed and subsequently refined to standardize and improve combat casualty care. Data are amassed through a single, centralized DoD Trauma Registry to support process improvement measures with specialty modules established as the registry evolved. Herein, we review the implementation of the JTS DoD Trauma Registry specialty Infectious Disease Module and the development of infection-related CPGs and summarize published findings on the subsequent impact of the Infectious Disease Module on combat casualty care clinical practice and guidelines. METHODS: The DoD Trauma Registry Infectious Disease Module was developed in collaboration with the Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program (IDCRP) Trauma Infectious Disease Outcomes Study (TIDOS). Infection-related information (e.g., syndromes, antibiotic management, and microbiology) were collected from military personnel wounded during deployment June 1, 2009 through December 31, 2014 and medevac'd to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany before transitioning to participating military hospitals in the USA. RESULTS: To support process improvements and reduce variation in practice patterns, data collected through the Infectious Disease Module have been utilized in TIDOS analyses focused on assessing compliance with post-trauma antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations detailed in JTS CPGs. Analyses examined compliance over three time periods: 6 months, one-year, and 5 years. The five-year analysis demonstrated significantly improved adherence to recommendations following the dissemination of the 2011 JTS CPG, particularly with open fractures (34% compliance compared to 73% in 2013-2014). Due to conflicting recommendations regarding use of expanded Gram-negative coverage with open fractures, infectious outcomes among patients with open fractures who received cefazolin or expanded Gram-negative coverage (cefazolin plus fluoroquinolones and/or aminoglycosides) were also examined in a TIDOS analysis. The lack of a difference in the proportion of osteomyelitis (8% in both groups) and the significantly greater recovery of Gram-negative organisms resistant to aminoglycosides or fluoroquinolones among patients who received expanded Gram-negative coverage supported JTS recommendations regarding the use of cefazolin with open fractures. Following recognition of the outbreak of invasive fungal wound infections (IFIs) among blast casualties injured in Afghanistan, the ID Module was refined to capture data (e.g., fungal culture and histopathology findings, wound necrosis, and antifungal management) needed for the TIDOS team to lead the DoD outbreak investigation. These data captured through the Infectious Disease Module provided support for the development of a JTS CPG for the prevention and management of IFIs, which was later refined based on subsequent TIDOS IFI analyses. CONCLUSIONS: To improve combat casualty care outcomes and mitigate high-consequence infections in future conflicts, particularly in the event of prolonged field care, expansion, refinement, and a mechanism for sustainability of the DoD Trauma Registry Infectious Disease Module is needed to include real-time surveillance of infectious disease trends and outcomes.

The DoD Trauma Registry Versus the Electronic Health Record.

There is a widely prevailing belief that electronic health records and data registries are the same, or that registries can be replaced by electronic health records given the advances in technology. While information systems have revolutionized documentation of medical care, distinctions continue to exist. This article will clear the confusion between the two systems, using the Joint Trauma System's (JTS) Department of Defense (DoD) Trauma Registry (DoDTR), the approved enterprise wide trauma registry for the military, as an example.

Comparison of Military and Civilian Methods for Determining Potentially Preventable Deaths: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Military and civilian trauma experts initiated a collaborative effort to develop an integrated learning trauma system to reduce preventable morbidity and mortality. Because the Department of Defense does not currently have recommended guidelines and standard operating procedures to perform military preventable death reviews in a consistent manner, these performance improvement processes must be developed. Objectives: To compare military and civilian preventable death determination methods to understand the existing best practices for evaluating preventable death. Evidence Review: This systematic review followed the PRISMA reporting guidelines. English-language articles were searched from inception to February 15, 2017, using the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Articles were initially screened for eligibility and excluded based on predetermined criteria. Articles reviewing only prehospital deaths, only inhospital deaths, or both were eligible for inclusion. Information on study characteristics was independently abstracted by 2 investigators. Reported are methodological factors affecting the reliability of preventable death studies and the preventable death rate, defined as the number of potentially preventable deaths divided by the total number of deaths within a specific patient population. Findings: Fifty studies (8 military and 42 civilian) met the inclusion criteria. In total, 1598 of 6500 military deaths reviewed and 3346 of 19 108 civilian deaths reviewed were classified as potentially preventable. Among military studies, the preventable death rate ranged from 3.1% to 51.4%. Among civilian studies, the preventable death rate ranged from 2.5% to 85.3%. The high level of methodological heterogeneity regarding factors, such as preventable death definitions, review process, and determination criteria, hinders a meaningful quantitative comparison of preventable death rates. Conclusions and Relevance: The reliability of military and civilian preventable death studies is hindered by inconsistent definitions, incompatible criteria, and the overall heterogeneity in study methods. The complexity, inconsistency, and unpredictability of combat require unique considerations to perform a methodologically sound combat-related preventable death review. As the Department of Defense begins the process of developing recommended guidelines and standard operating procedures for performing military preventable death reviews, consideration must be given to the factors known to increase the risk of bias and poor reliability.

The Military Orthopedic Trauma Registry: The potential of a specialty specific process improvement tool.

BACKGROUND: The Military Orthopaedic Trauma Registry (MOTR) was designed to replicate the Department of Defense Trauma Registry's (DoDTR's) role as pillar for data-driven management of extremity war wounds. The MOTR continuously undergoes quality assurance checks to optimize the registry data for future quality improvement efforts. We conducted a quality assurance survey of MOTR entrants to determine if a simple MOTR data pull could provide robust orthopedic-specific information toward the question of causes for late amputation. METHODS: Forty-five entrants into the DoDTR with late transtibial amputation were sequentially abstracted into MOTR by MOTR data abstractors. The MOTR record was then examined by an independent reviewer for three data fields pertaining to the events leading up to the late amputation: injury before limb amputation, complications before and after amputation, and complication or other factor directly contributing to the decision for amputation. RESULTS: Thirty-nine subjects had at least one fracture of the tibial diaphysis, tibial pilon, calcaneus, or multiple foot fractures. Twenty-nine fractures were described as open injuries for which 27 included a Gustilo and Anderson classification in the available data fields. Complications could be identified along the treatment course for 43 of the 45 entrants specific to the amputated limb. A directly contributing factor to late amputation was identified in 36 (80%) of the subjects. Infection, either alone or associated with fracture nonunion, was a contributing factor in 46% of late amputations. Wound infection was the most common complication both before and after the amputation. CONCLUSION: The MOTR, using a simple data extraction from a few registry fields, can provide a robust amount of information that can direct process and care improvement for severely injured limbs by providing the level of detail pertinent to an orthopedic surgeon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiological study, level IV.

Evaluation of role 2 (R2) medical resources in the Afghanistan combat theater: Initial review of the joint trauma system R2 registry.

BACKGROUND: A Role 2 registry (R2R) was developed in 2008 by the US Joint Trauma System (JTS). The purpose of this project was to undertake a preliminary review of the R2R to understand combat trauma epidemiology and related interventions at these facilities to guide training and optimal use of forward surgical capability in the future. METHODS: A retrospective review of available JTS R2R records; the registry is a convenience sample entered voluntarily by members of the R2 units. Patients were classified according to basic demographics, affiliation, region where treatment was provided, mechanism of injury, type of injury, time and method of transport from point of injury (POI) to R2 facility, interventions at R2, and survival. Analysis included trauma patients aged ≥18 years or older wounded in year 2008 to 2014, and treated in Afghanistan. RESULTS: A total of 15,404 patients wounded and treated in R2 were included in the R2R from February 2008 to September 2014; 12,849 patients met inclusion criteria. The predominant patient affiliations included US Forces, 4,676 (36.4%); Afghan Forces, 4,549 (35.4%); and Afghan civilians, 2,178 (17.0%). Overall, battle injuries predominated (9,792 [76.2%]). Type of injury included penetrating, 7,665 (59.7%); blunt, 4,026 (31.3%); and other, 633 (4.9%). Primary mechanism of injury included explosion, 5,320 (41.4%); gunshot wounds, 3,082 (24.0%); and crash, 1,209 (9.4%). Of 12,849 patients who arrived at R2, 167 (1.3%) were dead; of 12,682 patients who were alive upon arrival, 342 (2.7%) died at R2. CONCLUSION: This evaluation of the R2R describes the patient profiles of and common injuries treated in a sample of R2 facilities in Afghanistan. Ongoing and detailed analysis of R2R information may provide evidence-based guidance to military planners and medical leaders to best prepare teams and allocate R2 resources in future operations. Given the limitations of the data set, conclusions must be interpreted in context of other available data and analyses, not in isolation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level IV.

The Military Injury Severity Score (mISS): A better predictor of combat mortality than Injury Severity Score (ISS).

BACKGROUND: The Military Injury Severity Score (mISS) was developed to better predict mortality in complex combat injuries but has yet to be validated. METHODS: US combat trauma data from Afghanistan and Iraq from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014, from the US Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR) were analyzed. Military ISS, a variation of the ISS, was calculated and compared with standard ISS scores.Receiver operating characteristic curve, area under the curve, and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics were used to discriminate and calibrate between mISS and ISS. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, t test and χ tests were used, and sensitivity and specificity calculated. Logistic regression was used to calculate the likelihood of mortality associated with levels of mISS and ISS overall. RESULTS: Thirty thousand three hundred sixty-four patients were analyzed. Most were male (96.8%). Median age was 24 years (interquartile range [IQR], 21-29 years). Battle injuries comprised 65.3%. Penetrating (39.5%) and blunt (54.2%) injury types and explosion (51%) and gunshot wound (15%) mechanisms predominated. Overall mortality was 6.0%.Median mISS and ISS were similar in survivors (5 [IQR, 2-10] vs. 5 [IQR, 2-10]) but different in nonsurvivors, 30 (IQR, 16-75) versus 24 (IQR, 9-23), respectively (p < 0.0001). Military ISS and ISS were discordant in 17.6% (n = 5,352), accounting for 56.2% (n = 1,016) of deaths. Among cases with discordant severity scores, the median difference between mISS and ISS was 9 (IQR, 7-16); range, 1 to 59. Military ISS and ISS shared 78% variability (R = 0.78).Area under the curve was higher in mISS than in ISS overall (0.82 vs. 0.79), for battle injury (0.79 vs. 0.76), non-battle injury (0.87 vs. 0.86), penetrating (0.81 vs. 0.77), blunt (0.77 vs. 0.75), explosion (0.81 vs. 0.78), and gunshot (0.79 vs. 0.73), all p < 0.0001. Higher mISS and ISS were associated with higher mortality. Compared with ISS, mISS had higher sensitivity (81.2 vs. 63.9) and slightly lower specificity (80.2 vs. 85.7). CONCLUSION: Military ISS predicts combat mortality better than does ISS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiologic study, level III.

Combat injury coding: a review and reconfiguration.

BACKGROUND: The current civilian Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), designed for automobile crash injuries, yields important information about civilian injuries. It has been recognized for some time, however, that both the AIS and AIS-based scores such as the Injury Severity Score (ISS) are inadequate for describing penetrating injuries, especially those sustained in combat. Existing injury coding systems do not adequately describe (they actually exclude) combat injuries such as the devastating multi-mechanistic injuries resulting from attacks with improvised explosive devices (IEDs). METHODS: After quantifying the inapplicability of current coding systems, the Military Combat Injury Scale (MCIS), which includes injury descriptors that accurately characterize combat anatomic injury, and the Military Functional Incapacity Scale (MFIS), which indicates immediate tactical functional impairment, were developed by a large tri-service military and civilian group of combat trauma subject-matter experts. Assignment of MCIS severity levels was based on urgency, level of care needed, and risk of death from each individual injury. The MFIS was developed based on the casualty's ability to shoot, move, and communicate, and comprises four levels ranging from "Able to continue mission" to "Lost to military." Separate functional impairments were identified for injuries aboard ship. Preliminary evaluation of MCIS discrimination, calibration, and casualty disposition was performed on 992 combat-injured patients using two modeling processes. RESULTS: Based on combat casualty data, the MCIS is a new, simpler, comprehensive severity scale with 269 codes (vs. 1999 in AIS) that specifically characterize and distinguish the many unique injuries encountered in combat. The MCIS integrates with the MFIS, which associates immediate combat functional impairment with minor and moderate-severity injuries. Predictive validation on combat datasets shows improved performance over AIS-based tools in addition to improved face, construct, and content validity and coding inter-rater reliability. Thus, the MCIS has greater relevance, accuracy, and precision for many military-specific applications. CONCLUSION: Over a period of several years, the Military Combat Injury Scale and Military Functional Incapacity Scale were developed, tested and validated by teams of civilian and tri-service military expertise. MCIS shows significant promise in documenting the nature, severity and complexity of modern combat injury.

Improvements in the hemodynamic stability of combat casualties during en route care.

Three Forward Aeromedical Evacuation platforms operate in Southern Afghanistan: UK Medical Emergency Response Team (MERT), US Air Force Expeditionary Rescue Squadron (PEDRO), and US Army Medical Evacuation Squadrons (DUSTOFF), each with a different clinical capability. Recent evidence suggests that retrieval by a platform with a greater clinical capability (MERT) is associated with improved mortality in critical patients when compared with platforms with less clinical capability (PEDRO and DUSTOFF). It is unclear whether this is due to en route resuscitation or the dispatch procedure. The aim of this study was to compare prehospital Shock Index (SI = heart rate / systolic blood pressure) with admission values as a measure of resuscitation, across these platforms. Patients were identified from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry, who were evacuated between June 2009 and June 2011 in Southern Afghanistan. Data on platform type, physiology, and injury severity was extracted. Overall, 865 patients were identified: 478 MERT, 291 PEDRO, and 96 DUSTOFF patients and groups were compared across three injury severity scoring (ISS) bins: 1 to 9, 10 to 25, and 26 or greater. An improvement in the admission SI was observed across all platforms in the lowest ISS bin. Within the middle bin, both the MERT and PEDRO groups saw improved SI on admission, but not the DUSTOFF group. This trend was continued only in the MERT group for the highest ISS bin (1.39 ± 0.62 vs. 1.09 ± 0.42; P = 0.001), whereas a deterioration was identified in the PEDRO group (0.88 ± 0.37 vs. 1.02 ± 0.43; P = 0.440). The use of a Forward Aeromedical Evacuation platform with a greater clinical capability is associated with an improved hemodynamic status in critical casualties. The ideal prehospital triage should endeavor to match patient need with clinical capability.

Evaluation of military trauma system practices related to damage-control resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS) was developed with the vision that every soldier, marine, sailor, and airman injured on the battlefield would have the optimal chance for survival and maximum potential for functional recovery. In this analysis, we hypothesized that information diffusion through the JTTS, via the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines and process improvements, would be associated with the acceptance of evidence-based practices and decreases in trauma practice variability. METHODS: The current evaluation was designed as a single time-series quasi-experimental study as a preanalysis and postanalysis relative to the implementation of clinical practice guidelines and process improvement interventions. Data captured from patients admitted to hospital-level (Level III) military treatment facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 to 2010 were retrospectively analyzed from the Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR) to determine the potential impact of process improvement initiatives on clinical practice. RESULTS: The JTTS clinical practice guidelines for massive transfusion led to increased compliance with balanced component transfusion and decreased practice variability. During the course of the evaluation period, hypothermia on presentation decreased dramatically after the publication of the hypothermia prevention and management clinical practice guideline. CONCLUSION: Developed metrics demonstrate that evidence-based quality improvement initiatives disseminated through the JTTS were associated with improved clinical practice of resuscitation following battlefield injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Evaluation of military trauma system practices related to complications after injury.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS) was developed with the vision that every soldier, marine, sailor, and airman injured on the battlefield would have the optimal chance for survival and maximum potential for functional recovery. In this analysis, we hypothesized that injury and complication after injury surveillance information diffusion through the JTTS, via the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines and process improvements, would be associated with improved combat casualty clinical outcomes. METHODS: The current analysis was designed to profile different aspects of trauma system performance improvement, including monitoring of frequent posttraumatic complications, the assessment of an emerging complication trend, and measurement of the impact of the system interventions to identify potential practices for future performance improvement. Data captured from the Joint Theater Trauma Registry on patients admitted to military medical treatment facilities as a result of wounds incurred in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 to 2010 were retrospectively analyzed to determine the potential impact of complication surveillance and process improvement initiatives on clinical practice. RESULTS: Developed metrics demonstrated that the surveillance capacity and evidence-based quality improvement initiatives disseminated through the JTTS were associated with improved identification and mitigation of complications following battlefield injury. CONCLUSION: The Joint Trauma System enables evidence-based practice across the continuum of military trauma care. Concurrent data collection and performance improvement activities at the local and system level facilitate timely clinical intervention on identified trauma complications and the subsequent measurement of the effectiveness of those interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

Infections complicating the care of combat casualties during operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

BACKGROUND: Continued assessment of casualty complications, such as infections, enables the development of evidence-based guidelines to mitigate excess morbidity and mortality. We examine the Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR) for infections and potential risk factors, such as transfusions, among Iraq and Afghanistan trauma patients. METHODS: JTTR entries from deployment-related injuries with completed records between March 19, 2003, and April 13, 2009, were evaluated using International Classification of Diseases-9 codes for infections defined by anatomic/clinical syndromes and/or type of infecting organisms. Risk factors included mechanisms of injury, patient demographics, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and transfusion, including massive transfusions (≥ 10 units of packed red blood cells). RESULTS: We reviewed 16,742 patients entries (15,021 from Operation Iraqi Freedom (9,883 battle injuries [BI]) and 1,721 from Operation Enduring Freedom (1,090 BI). A total of 96.6% were men and 77.6% were Army personnel. The majority of BI were due to explosive devices (36.3%). There were 921 patients (5.5%) who had one or more infection codes with only 111 (0.6%) recorded deaths (16 with infections). Infections were commonly gram-negative bacteria (47.6%) involving skin/wound infections (26.7%), and lung infections (14.6%). Risk factors or associations that were most notable in univariate and multivariate analysis were calendar year of trauma, ISS, and pattern of injury. CONCLUSION: The 5.5% infection rate is consistent with previous military and civilian trauma literature; however, with the limitations of the JTTR, the infection rate is likely an underrepresentation due to inadequate level V and long-term infectious complications data. Combat operational trauma is primarily associated with gram-negative bacteria typically involving infections of wounds or other skin structures and lung infections such as pneumonia. They are commonly linked with higher ISS and injuries to the head, neck, and face.

Improved characterization of combat injury.

BACKGROUND: Combat injury patterns differ from civilian trauma in that the former are largely explosion-related, comprising multiple mechanistic and fragment injuries and high-kinetic-energy bullets. Further, unlike civilians, U.S. armed forces combatants are usually heavily protected with helmets and Kevlar body armor with ceramic plate inserts. Searchable databases providing actionable, statistically valid knowledge of body surface entry wounds and resulting organ injury severity are essential to understanding combat trauma. METHODS: Two tools were developed to address these unique aspects of combat injury: (1) the Surface Wound Mapping (SWM) database and Surface Wound Analysis Tool (SWAT) software that were developed to generate 3D density maps of point-of-surface wound entry and resultant anatomic injury severity; and (2) the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005-Military that was developed by a panel of military trauma surgeons to account for multiple injury etiology from explosions and other high-kinetic- energy weapons. Combined data from the Joint Theater Trauma Registry, Navy/Marine Combat Trauma Registry, and the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System Mortality Trauma Registry were coded in AIS 2005-Military, entered into the SWM database, and analyzed for entrance site and wounding path. RESULTS: When data on 1,151 patients, who had a total of 3,500 surface wounds and 12,889 injuries, were entered into SWM, surface wounds averaged 3.0 per casualty and injuries averaged 11.2 per casualty. Of the 3,500 surface wounds, 2,496 (71%) were entrance wounds with 6,631 (51%) associated internal injuries, with 2.2 entrance wounds and 5.8 associated injuries per casualty (some details cannot be given because of operational security). Crude deaths rates were calculated using Maximum AIS-Military. CONCLUSION: These new tools have been successfully implemented to describe combat injury, mortality, and distribution of wounds and associated injuries. AIS 2005-Military is a more precise assignment of severity to military injuries. SWM has brought data from all three combat registries together into one analyzable database. SWM and SWAT allow visualization of wounds and associated injuries by region on a 3D model of the body.

Impact of joint theater trauma system initiatives on battlefield injury outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The US military forces developed and implemented the Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS) and Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR) using US civilian trauma system models with the intent of improving outcomes after battlefield injury. METHODS: The purpose of this analysis was to elaborate the impact of the JTTS. To quantify these achievements, the JTTR captured mechanism, acute physiology, diagnostic, therapeutic, and outcome data on 23,250 injured patients admitted to deployed US military treatment facilities from July 2003 through July 2008 for analysis. Comparative analysis to civilian trauma systems was done using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). RESULTS: In contrast to civilian trauma systems with an 11.1% rate of penetrating injury, 68.3% of battlefield wounds were by penetrating mechanism. In the analyzed cohort, 23.3% of all patients had an Injury Severe Score (ISS) > or = 16, which is similar to the civilian rate of 22.4%. In the military injury population, 66% of injuries were combat-related. In addition, in the military injury group, 21.8% had metabolic evidence of shock with a base deficit > or = 5, 29.8% of patients required blood transfusion, and 6.4% of the total population of combat casualties required massive transfusion (>10 U red blood cells/24 hours). With this complex and severely injured population of battlefield injuries, the JTTS elements were used to recognize and remedy more than 60 trauma system issues requiring leadership and advocacy, education, research, and alterations in clinical care. Of particular importance to the trauma system was the implementation and tracking of performance improvement indicators and the dissemination of 27 evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). In particular, the damage control resuscitation guideline was associated with a decrease in mortality in the massively transfused from 32% pre-CPG to 21% post-CPG. As evidence of the effectiveness of the JTTS, a mortality rate of 5.2% after battlefield hospital admission is comparable to a case fatality rate of 4.3% reported in an age-matched cohort from the NTDB. CONCLUSIONS: JTTS initiatives contributed to improved survival after battlefield injury. The JTTS has set the standard of trauma care for the modern battlefield using contemporary systems-based methodologies.

Infections in combat casualties during Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.

BACKGROUND: Infections are a common acute and chronic complication of combat-related injuries; however, no systematic attempt to assess infections associated with US combat-related injuries occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan has been conducted. The Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR) has been established to collect injury specific medical data from casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. METHODS: We reviewed the JTTR for the identification of infectious complications (IC) using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) coding during two phases of the wars, before and after the end of the major ground operations in Iraq (19 March-May 31, 2003 and June 1, 2003-December 31, 2006). ICD-9 codes were combined into two categories; anatomic or clinical syndrome and pathogen. An IC was defined as the presence of ICD-9 codes that included both anatomic or clinical syndrome and a pathogen. RESULTS: There were 425 patients evaluated in phase I and 684 in phase II with approximately one third having an IC. The most common anatomic or clinical syndrome codes were skin or wound followed by lung, and the most common pathogen code was gram-negative bacteria. The site of injury had varying rates of IC: spine or back (53%), head or neck (44%), torso (43%), and extremity (35%). Injury Severity Score and certain mechanisms of injury (explosive device, bomb, and landmine) were associated with an IC on multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Infections are common after combat-related injuries. Although the JTTR can provide general information regarding infections, improved data capture and more specific clinical information is necessary to improve overall combat-related injury infection care.

Performance improvement on the battlefield.

The Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS) is a formal system of trauma care designed to improve the medical care and outcomes for combat casualties of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This article describes the JTTS Trauma Performance Improvement Plan and how JTTS personnel use it to facilitate performance improvement across the entire continuum of combat casualty care.