Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
BMJ Mil Health ; 170(2): 150-154, 2024 Mar 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38508774

ABSTRACT

The UK military prehospital emergency care (PHEC) operational clinical capability framework must be updated in order that it retains its use as a valid operational planning tool. Specific requirements include accurately defining the PHEC levels and the 'Medical Emergency Response Team' (MERT), while reinforcing PHEC as a specialist area of clinical practice that requires an assured set of competencies at all levels and mandatory clinical currency for vocational providers.A military PHEC review panel was convened by the Defence Consultant Advisor (DCA) for PHEC. Each PHEC level was reviewed and all issues which had, or could have arisen from the existing framework were discussed until agreement between the six members of this panel was established.An updated military PHEC framework has been produced by DCA PHEC, which defines the minimum requirements for each operational PHEC level. These definitions cover all PHEC providers, irrespective of professional background. The mandatory requirement for appropriate clinical exposure for vocational and specialist providers is emphasised. An updated definition of MERT has been agreed.This update provides clarity to the continually evolving domain of UK military PHEC. It sets out the PHEC provider requirements in order to be considered operationally deployable in a PHEC role. There are implications for training, manning and recruitment to meet these requirements, but the processes required to address these are already underway and well described elsewhere.


Subject(s)
Cysteine/analogs & derivatives , Emergency Medical Services , Military Medicine , Military Personnel , Humans , Military Medicine/education , United Kingdom
2.
BMJ Mil Health ; 167(3): 204-205, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32220966

ABSTRACT

The Fellowship in Immediate Medical Care (FIMC) is the highest level of formal qualification available for pre-hospital practitioners, aiming to test the knowledge, technical and non-technical skills of those providing specialist Pre-Hospital Emergency Care (PHEC). The FIMC is a multiprofessional examination with the potential to support continuous quality improvement of the PHEC that the Defence Medical Services (DMS) can offer to our patients now and in the future. The aim of this article is to inform the readership about the evolution of the FIMC examination and its applicability to military clinicians (and their civilian counterparts). A secondary aim is to inform those who are preparing for the examination.


Subject(s)
Fellowships and Scholarships/methods , Military Medicine/education , Physical Examination/methods , Clinical Competence/standards , Clinical Competence/statistics & numerical data , Fellowships and Scholarships/trends , Humans , Military Medicine/methods , Military Medicine/trends , Quality Improvement
4.
J R Army Med Corps ; 164(2): 92-95, 2018 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28855343

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Airborne operations enable large numbers of military forces to deploy on the ground in the shortest possible time. This however must be balanced by an increased risk of injury. The aim of this paper is to review the current UK military drop zone medical estimate process, which may help to predict the risk of potential injury and assist in planning appropriate levels of medical support. METHOD: In spring 2015, a British Airborne Battlegroup (UKBG) deployed on a 7-week overseas interoperability training exercise in the USA with their American counterparts (USBG). This culminated in a 7-day Combined Joint Operations Access Exercise, which began with an airborne Joint Forcible Entry (JFE) of approximately 2100 paratroopers.The predicted number of jump-related injuries was estimated using Parachute Order Number 8 (PO No 8). Such injuries were defined as injuries occurring from the time the paratrooper exited the aircraft until they released their parachute harness on the ground. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 53 (2.5%) casualties occurred in the JFE phase of the exercise, lower than the predicted number of 168 (8%) using the PO No 8 tool. There was a higher incidence of back (30% actual vs 20% estimated) and head injuries (21% actual vs 5% estimated) than predicted with PO No 8. CONCLUSION: The current method for predicting the incidence of medical injuries after a parachute drop using the PO No 8 tool is potentially not accurate enough for current requirements. Further research into injury rate, influencing factors and injury type are urgently required in order to provide an evidence base to ensure optimal medical logistical and clinical planning for airborne training and operations in the future.


Subject(s)
Aviation , Military Medicine/methods , Military Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Wounds and Injuries/epidemiology , Back Injuries/epidemiology , Craniocerebral Trauma/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Military Medicine/organization & administration , United Kingdom/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Wounds and Injuries/classification
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...