Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Pain control in trauma is an integral part of treatment in combat casualty care. More soldiers injured on the battlefield need analgesics for pain than life-saving interventions (LSIs). Early treatment of pain improves outcomes after injury, while inadequate treatment leads to higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Objective: To describe the experience of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Medical Corps with prehospital use of analgesia.

Methods: All cases documented in the IDF-Trauma Registry between January 1997 and December 2019 were examined. Data collection included analgesia administered, mechanism of injury, wound distribution, and life-saving interventions performed.

Results: Of 16,117 patients, 1807 (11.2%) had at least one documented analgesia. Demographics included 91.2% male; median age 21 years. Leading mechanism of injury was penetrating (52.9%). Of injured body regions reported, 46.2% were lower extremity wounds. Most common types of analgesics were morphine (57.2%) and fentanyl (27%). Over the two decades of the study period, types of analgesics given by providers at point of injury (POI) had changed. Fentanyl was introduced in 2013, and by 2019 was given to 39% of patients. Another change was an increase of casualties receiving analgesia from 5–10% until 2010 to 34% by 2019. A total of 824 LSIs were performed on 556 patients (30.8%) receiving analgesia and no adverse events were found in any of the casualties.

Conclusions: Most casualties at POI did not receive any analgesics. The most common analgesics administered were opioids. Over time analgesic administration has gained acceptance and become more commonplace on the battlefield.

Background: During the past 6 years the Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps (IDF-MC) deployed three humanitarian delegation field hospitals (HDFHs) in disaster zones around the globe: Haiti (2010), the Philippines (2013), and Nepal (2015). 

Objectives: To compare the activity of these HDFHs and the characteristics of the patients they served.

Methods: This retrospective study was based on the HDFHs’ operation logs and patients medical records. The study population included both the staff who participated and the patients who were treated in any of the three HDFHs.

Results: The Philippine HDFH was a "hybrid" type, i.e., it was integrated with a local hospital. Both the Haitian and the Nepali HDFHs were the "stand-alone" type, i.e., were completely autonomic in resources and in function. The Nepali HDFH had a larger staff, departed from Israel 4 hours earlier and was active 7 hours earlier as compared to the Haitian one. In total, 5465 patients, 55% of them female, were treated in the three HDFHs. In Haiti, Nepal and the Philippines, disaster-related injuries accounted for 66%, 26% and 2% of the cases, respectively. Disaster-related injuries presented mainly in the first days of the HDFHs' activity.

Conclusions: The next HDFH should be planned to care for a significant proportion of routine medical illnesses. The IDF-MC continuous learning process will enable future HDFHs to save more lives as we "extend a helping hand" to foreign populations in crisis.