Advertisement

Journal of Medical Toxicology

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 261–265 | Cite as

Wartime Toxicology: Evaluation of a Military Medical Toxicology Telemedicine Consults Service to Assist Physicians Serving Overseas and in Combat (2005–2012)

  • Joseph K. MaddryEmail author
  • Daniel Sessions
  • Kennon Heard
  • Charles Lappan
  • John McManus
  • Vikhyat S. Bebarta
Toxicology Investigation

Abstract

Those medical providers deployed to remote countries and tasked with caring for military personnel must diagnose and treat diseases and nonbattle injuries that result from exposures rarely seen in developed countries. Military providers must also function with limited resources and a lack of access to physician specialists, to include medical toxicologists. There have been limited published approaches to addressing this clinical gap for medical toxicology. To address this void, the US Army Medical Department deployed an electronic mail telemedicine system to provide teleconsultations for remote health-care providers worldwide, including Iraq and Afghanistan. This study aimed to describe the types and the frequency of toxicology teleconsultation and consultant responses using electronic mail to assist physicians serving in resource-limited locations. This was a retrospective observational study in which an unblinded data extractor independently reviewed all medical toxicology email consultations. Using a previously developed data collection worksheet, the extractor recorded the type of question asked by the consultant (overdose case, envenomation, occupational exposure, etc.) and the duration of time from when the teleconsultation was placed until the consultant replied. The extractor also recorded if the patient was adult or pediatric and if the patient was US military, US contractor, or local national. The extractor also recorded how often the toxicologist provided the consulting physician with information, resources, or protocols to aid in the management of future cases. In addition, for clinical teleconsultations, the extractor documented the frequency that the consulted toxicologist (i) provided a differential diagnosis or specific diagnosis, (ii) provided specific management guidelines for a patient, and (iii) recommended to evacuate or not evacuate a patient. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Of the 99 consultations evaluated, the most common consultation was for snake envenomation and antivenom recommendations (n = 23, 23 %) followed by accidental chemical exposures (n = 14, 14 %), drug testing (n = 13, 13 %), and substance abuse (n = 10, 10 %). In 41 % of consults, the toxicologist provided a differential diagnosis or specific diagnosis, and in 60 % of cases, the toxicologist provided specific management or evaluation guidelines. In 11 % of cases, the toxicologist recommended for or against evacuation of the patient. In 25 % of consults, the toxicologist provided the consulting physician with information, resources, or protocols to aid in the management of future cases. The most frequent consultations for the military telemedicine consultation service were for direct patient cases, specifically snake envenomation management and accidental chemical exposures. Our results may be used to educate physicians prior to military deployment or international humanitarian efforts and to create toxicology clinical guidelines for remote locations. Expansion of the current military teleconsultation program capabilities to include video teleconsultation may improve the effectiveness of military medical toxicology teleconsultation.

Keywords

Toxicology Military Teleconsultation Deployment Remote 

References

  1. 1.
    Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) (2012) Medical evacuations from Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn, active and reserve components, U.S. Armed Forces, 2003–2011. MSMR 19(2):18–21Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mines MJ, Bower KS, Lappan CM, Mazzoli RA, Poropatich RK (2011) The United States Army ocular teleconsultation program 2004 through 2009. Am J Ophthalmol 152(1):126–32 e2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McManus J, Salinas J, Morton M, Lappan C, Poropatich R (2008) Teleconsultation program for deployed soldiers and healthcare professionals in remote and austere environments. Prehosp Disaster Med 23(3):210–216, Discussion 7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poropatich RK, DeTreville R, Lappan C, Barrigan CR (2006) The U.S. Army telemedicine program: general overview and current status in Southwest Asia. Telemed J E Health 12(4):396–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson EB (1927) Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 22:209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark PA, Sillup GP, Capo JA (2010) Afghanistan, poppies, and the global pain crisis. Med Sci Monit 16(3):RA49–RA57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmidt T, Lappan CM, Hospenthal DR, Murray CK (2011) Deployed provider satisfaction with infectious disease teleconsulation. Mil Med 176(12):1417–1420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morgan AE, Lappan CM, Fraser SL, Hospenthal DR, Murray CK (2009) Infectious disease teleconsultative support of deployed healthcare providers. Mil Med 174(10):1055–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rand ER, Lappan CM, Lee JC, Furgerson JL (2009) Paging the worldwide cardiology consultant: the Army Knowledge Online Telemedicine Consultation Program in cardiology. Mil Med 174(11):1144–1148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bertani A, Launay F, Candoni P, Mathieu L, Rongieras F, Chauvin F (2012) Teleconsultation in paediatric orthopaedics in Djibouti: evaluation of response performance. Ortho Traum 98:803–807Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zachariah R, Bienvenue B, Ayada L, Manzi M, Maalim A, Engy E et al (2012) Practicing medicine without borders: tele-consultations and tele-monitoring for improving paediatric care in a conflict setting in Somalia? Trop Med Int Health 17(9):1156–1162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skolnik A (2013) Telemedicine and toxicology: back to the future? J Med Toxicol 9(3):217–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phillips KA, Homan RK, Hiatt PH, Luft HS, Kearney TE, Heard SE et al (1998) The costs and outcomes of restricting public access to poison control centers. Results from a natural experiment. Med Care 36(3):271–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark RF, Williams SR, Nordt SP, Pearigen PD, Deutsch R (1998) Resource-use analysis of a medical toxicology consultation service. Ann Emerg Med 31(6):705–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kearney TE, Olson KR, Bero LA, Heard SE, Blanc PD (1995) Health care cost effects of public use of a regional poison control center. West J Med 162(6):499–504PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilbert EK, Lowenstein SR, Koziol-McLain J, Barta DC, Steiner J (1996) Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med 27(3):305–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American College of Medical Toxicology (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph K. Maddry
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Sessions
    • 1
  • Kennon Heard
    • 2
  • Charles Lappan
    • 3
  • John McManus
    • 4
  • Vikhyat S. Bebarta
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical ToxicologySan Antonio Military Medical CenterSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug CenterDenverUSA
  3. 3.Southern Regional Medical CommandFort Sam HoustonUSA
  4. 4.Georgia Regents UniversityAugustaUSA

Personalised recommendations