Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). 1 February 2020; Volume 155 (Issue 2); 114.; DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.4547
Wren SM, Wild HB, Gurney J, Amirtharajah M, Pagano H, et al.
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). 1 February 2020; Volume 155 (Issue 2); 114.; DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.4547
IMPORTANCE
Armed conflict in the 21st century poses new challenges to a humanitarian surgical response, including changing security requirements, access to patients, and communities in need, limited deployable surgical assets, resource constraints, and the requirement to address both traumatic injuries as well as emergency surgical needs of the population. At the same time, recent improvements in trauma care and systems have reduced injury-related mortality. This combination of new challenges and medical capabilities warrants reconsideration of long-standing humanitarian surgery protocols.
OBJECTIVE
To describe a consensus framework for surgical care designed to respond to this emerging need.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
An international group of 35 representatives from humanitarian agencies, US military, and academic trauma programs was invited to the Stanford Humanitarian Surgical Response in Conflict Working Group to engage in a structured process to review extant trauma protocols and make recommendations for revision.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The working group's method adapted core elements of a modified Delphi process combined with consensus development conference from August 3 to August 5, 2018.
RESULTS
Lessons from civilian and military trauma systems as well as recent battlefield experiences in humanitarian settings were integrated into a tiered continuum of response from point of injury through rehabilitation. The framework addresses the security and medical requirements as well as ethical and legal principles that guide humanitarian action. The consensus framework includes trained, lay first responders; far-forward resuscitation/stabilization centers; rapid damage control surgical access; and definitive care facilities. The system also includes nontrauma surgical care, injury prevention, quality improvement, data collection, and predeployment training requirements.
CONCLUSIONS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence suggests that modern trauma systems save lives. However, the requirements of providing this standard of care in insecure conflict settings places new burdens on humanitarian systems that must provide both emergency and trauma surgical care. This consensus framework integrates advances in trauma care and surgical systems in response to a changing security environment. It is possible to reduce disparities and improve the standard of care in these settings.
Armed conflict in the 21st century poses new challenges to a humanitarian surgical response, including changing security requirements, access to patients, and communities in need, limited deployable surgical assets, resource constraints, and the requirement to address both traumatic injuries as well as emergency surgical needs of the population. At the same time, recent improvements in trauma care and systems have reduced injury-related mortality. This combination of new challenges and medical capabilities warrants reconsideration of long-standing humanitarian surgery protocols.
OBJECTIVE
To describe a consensus framework for surgical care designed to respond to this emerging need.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
An international group of 35 representatives from humanitarian agencies, US military, and academic trauma programs was invited to the Stanford Humanitarian Surgical Response in Conflict Working Group to engage in a structured process to review extant trauma protocols and make recommendations for revision.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The working group's method adapted core elements of a modified Delphi process combined with consensus development conference from August 3 to August 5, 2018.
RESULTS
Lessons from civilian and military trauma systems as well as recent battlefield experiences in humanitarian settings were integrated into a tiered continuum of response from point of injury through rehabilitation. The framework addresses the security and medical requirements as well as ethical and legal principles that guide humanitarian action. The consensus framework includes trained, lay first responders; far-forward resuscitation/stabilization centers; rapid damage control surgical access; and definitive care facilities. The system also includes nontrauma surgical care, injury prevention, quality improvement, data collection, and predeployment training requirements.
CONCLUSIONS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence suggests that modern trauma systems save lives. However, the requirements of providing this standard of care in insecure conflict settings places new burdens on humanitarian systems that must provide both emergency and trauma surgical care. This consensus framework integrates advances in trauma care and surgical systems in response to a changing security environment. It is possible to reduce disparities and improve the standard of care in these settings.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Surgery. 8 April 2017; Volume 162 (Issue 2); 366-376.; DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.03.001
Forrester JD, Forrester JA, Basimuoneye JP, Tahir MZ, Trelles M, et al.
Surgery. 8 April 2017; Volume 162 (Issue 2); 366-376.; DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.03.001
BACKGROUND
Armed conflict increasingly involves civilian populations, and health care needs may be immense. We hypothesized that sex disparities may exist among persons receiving operative care in conflict zones and sought to describe predictors of disparity.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective analysis of operative interventions performed between 2008 and 2014 at Médecins Sans Frontières Operation Center Brussels conflict projects. A Médecins Sans Frontières Operation Center Brussels conflict project was defined as a program established in response to human conflict, war, or social unrest. Intervention- and country-level variables were evaluated. For multivariate analysis, multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used with random-effect modeling to account for clustering and population differences in conflict zones.
RESULTS
Between 2008 and 2014, 49,715 interventions were performed in conflict zones by Médecins Sans Frontières Operation Center Brussels. Median patient age was 24 years (range: 1-105 years), and 34,436 (69%) were men. Patient-level variables associated with decreased interventions on women included: American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = .003), degree of urgency (P = .02), mechanism (P < .0001), and a country's predominant religion (P = .006). Men were 1.7 times more likely to have an operative intervention in a predominantly Muslim country (P = .006).
CONCLUSION
Conflict is an unfortunate consequence of humanity in a world with limited resources. For most operative interventions performed in conflict zones, men were more commonly represented. Predominant religion was the greatest predictor of increased disparity between sexes, irrespective of the number of patients presenting as a result of traumatic injury. It is critical to understand what factors may underlie this disparity to ensure equitable and appropriate care for all patients in an already tragic situation.
Armed conflict increasingly involves civilian populations, and health care needs may be immense. We hypothesized that sex disparities may exist among persons receiving operative care in conflict zones and sought to describe predictors of disparity.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective analysis of operative interventions performed between 2008 and 2014 at Médecins Sans Frontières Operation Center Brussels conflict projects. A Médecins Sans Frontières Operation Center Brussels conflict project was defined as a program established in response to human conflict, war, or social unrest. Intervention- and country-level variables were evaluated. For multivariate analysis, multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used with random-effect modeling to account for clustering and population differences in conflict zones.
RESULTS
Between 2008 and 2014, 49,715 interventions were performed in conflict zones by Médecins Sans Frontières Operation Center Brussels. Median patient age was 24 years (range: 1-105 years), and 34,436 (69%) were men. Patient-level variables associated with decreased interventions on women included: American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = .003), degree of urgency (P = .02), mechanism (P < .0001), and a country's predominant religion (P = .006). Men were 1.7 times more likely to have an operative intervention in a predominantly Muslim country (P = .006).
CONCLUSION
Conflict is an unfortunate consequence of humanity in a world with limited resources. For most operative interventions performed in conflict zones, men were more commonly represented. Predominant religion was the greatest predictor of increased disparity between sexes, irrespective of the number of patients presenting as a result of traumatic injury. It is critical to understand what factors may underlie this disparity to ensure equitable and appropriate care for all patients in an already tragic situation.