Introduction: Historically, there has been variability in the methods for determining preventable death within the US Department of Defense. Differences in methodologies partially explain variable preventable death rates ranging from 3% to 51%. The lack of standard review process likely misses opportunities for improvement in combat casualty care. This project identified recommended medical and non-medical factors necessary to (1) establish a comprehensive preventable death review process and (2) identify opportunities for improvement throughout the entire continuum of care.
Methods: This qualitative study used a modified rapid assessment process that includes the following steps: (1) identification and recruitment of US government subject matter experts (SMEs); (2) multiple cycles of data collection via key informant interviews and focus groups; (3) consolidation of information collected in these interviews; and (4) iterative analysis of data collected from interviews into common themes. Common themes identified from SME feedback were grouped into the following subject areas: (1) prehospital, (2) in-hospital and (3) forensic pathology.
Results: Medical recommendations for military preventable death reviews included the development, training, documentation, collection, analysis and reporting of the implementation of the Tactical Combat Casualty Care Guidelines, Joint Trauma System Clinical Practice Guidelines and National Association of Medical Examiners autopsy standards. Non-medical recommendations included training, improved documentation, data collection and analysis of non-medical factors needed to understand how these factors impact optimal medical care.
Conclusions: In the operational environment, medical care must be considered in the context of non-medical factors. For a comprehensive preventable death review process to be sustainable in the military health system, the process must be based on an appropriate conceptual framework implemented consistently across all military services.
Keywords: epidemiology; public health; qualitative research.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.