Critical Care in the Military Health System: A 24-h Point Prevalence Study

Beyond Trauma: High-Volume Critical Care Medicine in a Military Medical Center-Based Military-Civilian Partnership

INTRODUCTION

Critical Care Internal Medicine (CCIM) is vital to the U.S. Military as evidenced by the role CCIM played in the COVID-19 pandemic response and wartime operations. Although the proficiency needs of military surgeons have been well studied, this has not been the case for CCIM. The objective of this study was to compare the patient volume and acuity of military CCIM physicians working solely at Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) with those at MTFs also working part-time in a military-civilian partnership (MCP) at the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada (UMC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed FY2019 critical care coding data from the Military Health System and UMC comparing the number of critical care encounters, the number of high-acuity critical care encounters, and the Abilities/Activity component of the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities/Clinical Activity (KSA) score. This analysis was restricted to critical care encounters defined by Current Procedural Terminology codes for critical care (99291 and 99292). A critical care encounter was considered high acuity if the patient had ICD-10 codes for shock, respiratory failure, or cardiac arrest or had at least three codes for critical care in the same episode.

RESULTS

The five AF CCIM physicians in the MCP group performed 2,019 critical care encounters in 206 days, with 63.1% (1,273) being defined as high acuity. The total number of MTF critical care encounters was 16,855 across all providers and services, with 28.9% (4,864) of encounters defined as high acuity. When limited to CCIM encounters, MTFs had 6,785 critical care encounters, with 32.0% being high acuity (2,171). Thus, the five AF CCIM physicians, while working 206 days at the UMC, equated to 12.0% (2,019/16,855) of the total critical care MTF encounters, 27.2% (1,273/4,684) of the total high-acuity MTF critical care encounters, and 29.8% (2,019/6,785) of the MTF CCIM encounters, with 58.6% (1,273/2,171) of the MTF CCIM high-acuity encounters.The USAF CCIM physicians in the MCP group performed 454,395 KSAs in 206 days, with a KSA density per day of 2,206. In the MTF group, CCIM providers generated 2,344,791 total KSAs over 10,287 days, with a KSA density per day of 227.9. Thus, the five CCIM physicians at the UMC accounted for 19.38% of the MTF CCIM KSAs, with a KSA density over 10 times higher (2,206 vs. 227.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The volume and acuity of critical care at MTFs may be insufficient to maintain CCIM proficiency under the current system. Military-civilian partnerships are invaluable in maintaining clinical proficiency for military CCIM physicians and can be done on a part-time basis while maintaining beneficiary care at an MTF. Future CCIM expeditionary success is contingent on CCIM physicians and team members having the required CCIM exposure to grow and maintain clinical proficiency.Limitations of this study include the absence of off-duty employment (moonlighting) data and difficulty filtering military data down to just CCIM physicians, which likely caused the MTF CCIM data to be overestimated.

In-hospital Outcomes for COVID-19 Patients in the Military Health System: Comparison of Military and Civilian Facility Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Beneficiaries of TRICARE, an insurance program of the military health system, can choose to receive care within the private sector (fee-for-service) or direct (budget-based facilities with salaried providers) care setting. Previous studies in several specialties have shown that there are disparities in both resource utilization and outcomes between the two settings. In this study, we sought to determine differences in outcomes between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients treated in the private sector versus direct care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using TRICARE claims data, we identified patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 between March and September 2020. Cases were classified, according to the facility where they were admitted for treatment, as private sector or direct care. We abstracted patient sociodemographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and outcomes including in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ventilator use, in-hospital complications, and 30-day readmission. We used multivariable regression models, adjusted for covariates, to determine the association between health care settings and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 3,177 patients were included. Of these, 2,147 (68%) and 1,030 (32%) received care in the private sector and direct care settings, respectively. The average age of the study cohort was 52 years (SD = 21), and 84% had at least one medical comorbidity. In adjusted analyses, we found significant differences in the rates of ICU admission, with patients treated in private sector care having lower odds of being admitted to the ICU (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76). There were no significant differences in the rates of in-hospital mortality, ventilator use, in-hospital complications, and 30-day readmissions.

CONCLUSION

With the exception of ICU admission rates, which are higher in the direct care setting, we encountered comparable hospital-based outcomes for patients treated for COVID-19 within the military health system, whether care was received under private sector or direct care.

Evolution of the United States Military Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Transport Team

INTRODUCTION

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for the care of critically ill adult patients has increased over the past decade. It has been utilized in more austere locations, to include combat wounded. The U.S. military established the Acute Lung Rescue Team in 2005 to transport and care for patients unable to be managed by standard medical evacuation resources. In 2012, the U.S. military expanded upon this capacity, establishing an ECMO program at Brooke Army Medical Center. To maintain currency, the program treats both military and civilian patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective review of all patients transported by the sole U.S. military ECMO program from September 2012 to December 2019. We analyzed basic demographic data, ECMO indication, transport distance range, survival to decannulation and discharge, and programmatic growth.

RESULTS

The U.S. military ECMO team conducted 110 ECMO transports. Of these, 88 patients (80%) were transported to our facility and 81 (73.6%) were cannulated for ECMO by our team prior to transport. The primary indication for ECMO was respiratory failure (76%). The range of transport distance was 6.5 to 8,451 miles (median air transport distance = 1,328 miles, median ground transport distance = 16 miles). In patients who were cannulated remotely, survival to decannulation was 76% and survival to discharge was 73.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of the U.S. military ECMO team has increased exponentially since January 2017. With an increased tempo of transport operations and distance of critical care transport, survival to decannulation and discharge rates exceed national benchmarks as described in ELSO published data. The ability to cannulate patients in remote locations and provide critical care transport to a military medical treatment facility has allowed the U.S. military to maintain readiness of a critical medical asset.