A comparison between patients treated at a combat support hospital in Iraq and a Level I trauma center in the United States.

Martin Schreiber, Karen Zink, Samantha Underwood, Lance Sullenberger, Matthew Kelly, John B. Holcomb

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    36 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: Combat support hospitals (CSHs) function under adverse operational conditions, delivering care to diverse patients. Appropriate allocation of resources and training are dependent on accurate assessments of the populations' needs. This study compared two patient populations treated between December 2004 and November 2005, one from a CSH in Iraq, the other at a civilian Level I trauma center. METHODS: The trauma registry at Oregon Health & Science University was queried to evaluate all trauma patients admitted during the study period. The medical databases of the CSH were retrospectively reviewed. Coalition (Co) patients were US soldiers, their allies, and support staff. Noncoalition (Non-Co) patients were Iraqi Army, Iraqi National Guard, enemy forces, and Iraqi civilians. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-four patients were admitted to the CSH. Four hundred sixty-five of 696 (67%) Co patients versus 143 of 358 (40%) Non-Co patients had disease-related diagnoses (p <0.01). The remaining 446 patients had traumatic diagnoses; 231 (52%) of these were Co patients. The incidence of battle injury was 59% in Co patients versus 90% in Non-Co patients (p <0.01). One thousand three hundred thirty-nine trauma patients were admitted to Oregon Health & Science University. Civilian patients were older, less likely to be men, and had higher Injury Severity Scale scores than Co and Non-Co patients. Non-Co patients had higher Injury Severity Scale score, longer lengths of stay, and underwent 2.5 times as many operations as Co patients. Of the civilian patients, 93% were injured by blunt mechanisms compared with 20% of combat victims (p <0.01). Percentages of abdominal, thoracic, and vascular procedures were similar between the three groups, but combat victims had more soft tissue procedures and dressing changes. There were no differences in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although CSHs and civilian trauma centers treat significantly different patient populations, the operations performed and outcomes are similar. Non-Co patients consumed 2.5 times more operative resources than did Co patients at the CSH.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    JournalThe Journal of trauma
    Volume64
    Issue number2 Suppl
    StatePublished - Feb 2008

    Fingerprint

    Iraq
    Trauma Centers
    Injury Severity Score
    Wounds and Injuries
    Population

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Medicine(all)

    Cite this

    A comparison between patients treated at a combat support hospital in Iraq and a Level I trauma center in the United States. / Schreiber, Martin; Zink, Karen; Underwood, Samantha; Sullenberger, Lance; Kelly, Matthew; Holcomb, John B.

    In: The Journal of trauma, Vol. 64, No. 2 Suppl, 02.2008.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Schreiber, Martin ; Zink, Karen ; Underwood, Samantha ; Sullenberger, Lance ; Kelly, Matthew ; Holcomb, John B. / A comparison between patients treated at a combat support hospital in Iraq and a Level I trauma center in the United States. In: The Journal of trauma. 2008 ; Vol. 64, No. 2 Suppl.
    @article{0099594dae004b739450286a2d0780a9,
    title = "A comparison between patients treated at a combat support hospital in Iraq and a Level I trauma center in the United States.",
    abstract = "BACKGROUND: Combat support hospitals (CSHs) function under adverse operational conditions, delivering care to diverse patients. Appropriate allocation of resources and training are dependent on accurate assessments of the populations' needs. This study compared two patient populations treated between December 2004 and November 2005, one from a CSH in Iraq, the other at a civilian Level I trauma center. METHODS: The trauma registry at Oregon Health & Science University was queried to evaluate all trauma patients admitted during the study period. The medical databases of the CSH were retrospectively reviewed. Coalition (Co) patients were US soldiers, their allies, and support staff. Noncoalition (Non-Co) patients were Iraqi Army, Iraqi National Guard, enemy forces, and Iraqi civilians. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-four patients were admitted to the CSH. Four hundred sixty-five of 696 (67{\%}) Co patients versus 143 of 358 (40{\%}) Non-Co patients had disease-related diagnoses (p <0.01). The remaining 446 patients had traumatic diagnoses; 231 (52{\%}) of these were Co patients. The incidence of battle injury was 59{\%} in Co patients versus 90{\%} in Non-Co patients (p <0.01). One thousand three hundred thirty-nine trauma patients were admitted to Oregon Health & Science University. Civilian patients were older, less likely to be men, and had higher Injury Severity Scale scores than Co and Non-Co patients. Non-Co patients had higher Injury Severity Scale score, longer lengths of stay, and underwent 2.5 times as many operations as Co patients. Of the civilian patients, 93{\%} were injured by blunt mechanisms compared with 20{\%} of combat victims (p <0.01). Percentages of abdominal, thoracic, and vascular procedures were similar between the three groups, but combat victims had more soft tissue procedures and dressing changes. There were no differences in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although CSHs and civilian trauma centers treat significantly different patient populations, the operations performed and outcomes are similar. Non-Co patients consumed 2.5 times more operative resources than did Co patients at the CSH.",
    author = "Martin Schreiber and Karen Zink and Samantha Underwood and Lance Sullenberger and Matthew Kelly and Holcomb, {John B.}",
    year = "2008",
    month = "2",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "64",
    journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
    issn = "2163-0755",
    publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
    number = "2 Suppl",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - A comparison between patients treated at a combat support hospital in Iraq and a Level I trauma center in the United States.

    AU - Schreiber, Martin

    AU - Zink, Karen

    AU - Underwood, Samantha

    AU - Sullenberger, Lance

    AU - Kelly, Matthew

    AU - Holcomb, John B.

    PY - 2008/2

    Y1 - 2008/2

    N2 - BACKGROUND: Combat support hospitals (CSHs) function under adverse operational conditions, delivering care to diverse patients. Appropriate allocation of resources and training are dependent on accurate assessments of the populations' needs. This study compared two patient populations treated between December 2004 and November 2005, one from a CSH in Iraq, the other at a civilian Level I trauma center. METHODS: The trauma registry at Oregon Health & Science University was queried to evaluate all trauma patients admitted during the study period. The medical databases of the CSH were retrospectively reviewed. Coalition (Co) patients were US soldiers, their allies, and support staff. Noncoalition (Non-Co) patients were Iraqi Army, Iraqi National Guard, enemy forces, and Iraqi civilians. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-four patients were admitted to the CSH. Four hundred sixty-five of 696 (67%) Co patients versus 143 of 358 (40%) Non-Co patients had disease-related diagnoses (p <0.01). The remaining 446 patients had traumatic diagnoses; 231 (52%) of these were Co patients. The incidence of battle injury was 59% in Co patients versus 90% in Non-Co patients (p <0.01). One thousand three hundred thirty-nine trauma patients were admitted to Oregon Health & Science University. Civilian patients were older, less likely to be men, and had higher Injury Severity Scale scores than Co and Non-Co patients. Non-Co patients had higher Injury Severity Scale score, longer lengths of stay, and underwent 2.5 times as many operations as Co patients. Of the civilian patients, 93% were injured by blunt mechanisms compared with 20% of combat victims (p <0.01). Percentages of abdominal, thoracic, and vascular procedures were similar between the three groups, but combat victims had more soft tissue procedures and dressing changes. There were no differences in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although CSHs and civilian trauma centers treat significantly different patient populations, the operations performed and outcomes are similar. Non-Co patients consumed 2.5 times more operative resources than did Co patients at the CSH.

    AB - BACKGROUND: Combat support hospitals (CSHs) function under adverse operational conditions, delivering care to diverse patients. Appropriate allocation of resources and training are dependent on accurate assessments of the populations' needs. This study compared two patient populations treated between December 2004 and November 2005, one from a CSH in Iraq, the other at a civilian Level I trauma center. METHODS: The trauma registry at Oregon Health & Science University was queried to evaluate all trauma patients admitted during the study period. The medical databases of the CSH were retrospectively reviewed. Coalition (Co) patients were US soldiers, their allies, and support staff. Noncoalition (Non-Co) patients were Iraqi Army, Iraqi National Guard, enemy forces, and Iraqi civilians. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-four patients were admitted to the CSH. Four hundred sixty-five of 696 (67%) Co patients versus 143 of 358 (40%) Non-Co patients had disease-related diagnoses (p <0.01). The remaining 446 patients had traumatic diagnoses; 231 (52%) of these were Co patients. The incidence of battle injury was 59% in Co patients versus 90% in Non-Co patients (p <0.01). One thousand three hundred thirty-nine trauma patients were admitted to Oregon Health & Science University. Civilian patients were older, less likely to be men, and had higher Injury Severity Scale scores than Co and Non-Co patients. Non-Co patients had higher Injury Severity Scale score, longer lengths of stay, and underwent 2.5 times as many operations as Co patients. Of the civilian patients, 93% were injured by blunt mechanisms compared with 20% of combat victims (p <0.01). Percentages of abdominal, thoracic, and vascular procedures were similar between the three groups, but combat victims had more soft tissue procedures and dressing changes. There were no differences in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although CSHs and civilian trauma centers treat significantly different patient populations, the operations performed and outcomes are similar. Non-Co patients consumed 2.5 times more operative resources than did Co patients at the CSH.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=43349102289&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=43349102289&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Article

    VL - 64

    JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

    JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

    SN - 2163-0755

    IS - 2 Suppl

    ER -