No abstract

No abstract

SummaryPre‐hospital emergency anaesthesia with oral tracheal intubation is the technique of choice for trauma patients who cannot maintain their airway or achieve adequate ventilation. It should be carried out as soon as safely possible, and performed to the same standards as in‐hospital emergency anaesthesia. It should only be conducted within organisations with comprehensive clinical governance arrangements. Techniques should be straightforward, reproducible, as simple as possible and supported by the use of checklists. Monitoring and equipment should meet in‐hospital anaesthesia standards. Practitioners need to be competent in the provision of in‐hospital emergency anaesthesia and have supervised pre‐hospital experience before carrying out pre‐hospital emergency anaesthesia. Training programmes allowing the safe delivery of pre‐hospital emergency anaesthesia by non‐physicians do not currently exist in the UK. Where pre‐hospital emergency anaesthesia skills are not available, oxygenation and ventilation should be maintained with the use of second‐generation supraglottic airways in patients without airway reflexes, or basic airway manoeuvres and basic airway adjuncts in patients with intact airway reflexes.

This paper discusses mathematical models of expressing severity of injury and probability of survival following trauma and their use in establishing clinical governance of a trauma system. There are five sections: (i) Historical overview of scoring systems-anatomical, physiological and combined systems and the advantages and disadvantages of each. (ii) Definitions used in official statistics-definitions of 'killed in action' and other categories and the importance of casualty reporting rates and comparison across conflicts and nationalities. (iii) Current scoring systems and clinical governance-clinical governance of the trauma system in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) by using trauma scoring models to analyse injury and clinical patterns. (iv) Unexpected outcomes-unexpected outcomes focus clinical governance tools. Unexpected survivors signify good practice to be promulgated. Unexpected deaths pick up areas of weakness to be addressed. Seventy-five clinically validated unexpected survivors were identified over 2 years during contemporary combat operations. (v) Future developments-can the trauma scoring methods be improved? Trauma scoring systems use linear approaches and have significant weaknesses. Trauma and its treatment is a complex system. Nonlinear methods need to be investigated to determine whether these will produce a better approach to the analysis of the survival from major trauma.

Employers and policymakers are looking for ways to encourage competition among health plans, thus lowering costs and improving quality. Employers hope to foster competition among health plans by creating standardized measures of quality that supplement the traditional benefits and cost information employees use to compare plans and make choices. This DataWatch examines employees' interest in standardized measures of plan performance. Results from a survey of Massachusetts state employees show that cost and benefit information receive high rankings, but certain plan performance information does not.E MPLOYERS THAT USE standardized health plan performance information to compare the quality and cost of plans they purchase may want to pass this information along to their employees. Whether employees will find plan performance information useful in comparing and choosing health plans, however, is largely unknown.In this DataWatch, we present the results of a pilot study of employees' information needs and discuss the implications of the results. The purpose of the study was to answer the following questions: What information is essential to the most employees in choosing health plans? What information is essential to the fewest employees? What information do employees say is not useful or somewhat useful in choosing health plans? 1 How do employees'

Bomb or explosion-blast injuries are likely to be increasingly encountered as terrorist activity increases and pre-hospital medical care improves. We therefore reviewed the epidemiology, pathophysiology and treatment of primary blast lung injury. In addition to contemporary military publications and expert recommendation, an EMBASE and MEDLINE search of English speaking journals was undertaken using the medical subject headings (MeSHs) ‘blast injury’ and ‘lung injury’. Review articles, retrospective case series, and controlled animal modelling studies published since 2000 were evaluated. 6-11% of military casualties in recent conflicts have suffered primary blast lung injury but the incidence increases to more than 90% in terrorist attacks occurring in enclosed spaces such as trains. The majority of victims require mechanical ventilation and intensive care management. Specific therapies do not exist and treatment is supportive utilizing current best practice. Understanding the consequences and supportive therapies available to treat primary blast lung injury are important for anaesthetists.

No abstract

ISS and TRISS are poorly representative of injury severity and outcome for combat trauma involving isolated multiple limb injuries and cannot be used to discriminate whether a tourniquet is life-saving. The presence of severe isolated limb injuries, profound hypovolaemic shock and the requirement for massive transfusion reasonably identifies a cohort where the use of one or more tourniquets pre-hospital to control external bleeding can be said to be life-saving.