Background: The Israeli Defense Forces-Medical Corps (IDF-MC) focuses on reducing preventable death by improving prehospital trauma care. High quality documentation of care can serve casualty care and to improve future care. Currently, paper casualty cards are used for documentation. Incomplete data acquisition and inadequate data handover are common. To resolve these deficits, the IDF-MC launched the BladeShield 101 project.

Objectives: To assess the quality of casualty care data acquired by comparing standard paper casualty cards with the BladeShield 101.

Methods: The BladeShield 101 system consists of three components: a patient unit that records vital signs and medical care provided, a medical sensor that transmits to the patient unit, and a ruggedized mobile device that allows providers to access and document information. We compared all trauma registries of casualties treated between September 2019 and June 2020.

Results: The system was applied during the study period on 24 patients. All data were transferred to the military trauma registry within one day, compared to 72% (141/194) with a paper casualty card (P < 0.01). Information regarding treatment time was available in 100% vs. 43% (P < 0.01) of cases and 98% vs. 67% (P < 0.01) of treatments provided were documented comparing BladeShield 101 with paper cards, respectively.

Conclusions: Using an autonomous system to record, view, deliver, and store casualty information may resolve most current information flow deficits. This solution will ultimately significantly improve individual patient care and systematic learning and development processes.

Objectives: To estimate the effect of implementation of a safety checklist in an orthopedic surgical department.

Methods: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional study to compare the incidence of complications prior to and following implementation of the Guidelines for Safe Surgery checklist. The medical records of all consecutive adult patients admitted to the orthopedics department at Wolfson Medical Center during the period 1 July 2008 to 1 January 2009 (control group) and from 1 January 2009 to 1 July 2009 (study group) were reviewed. The occurrences of all complications were compared between the two groups.

Results: The records of 760 patients (380 in each group) hospitalized during this 12 month period were analyzed. Postoperative fever occurred in 5.3% vs. 10.6% of patients with and without the checklist respectively (P = 0.008). Significantly more patients received only postoperative prophylactic antibiotics rather than both pre-and postoperative antibiotic treatment prior to implementation of the checklist (3.2% vs. 0%, P = 0.004). In addition, a statistically non-significant 34% decrease in the rate of surgical wound infection was also detected in the checklist group. In a logistic regression model of postoperative fever, the checklist emerged as a significant independent predictor of this outcome: odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.29–0.96, P = 0.037.

Conclusion: A significant reduction in postoperative fever after the implementation of the surgical safety checklist was found. It is possible that the improved usage of preoperative prophylactic antibiotics may explain the reduction in postoperative fever.

Background: The incidence of spinal failure necessitating general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation following spinal anesthesia for cesarean section is extremely low. Aspiration prophylaxis prior to spinal anesthesia is often recommended in case of spinal failure or excessive spinal block requiring the emergency administration of general anesthesia.

Objectives: To determine the incidence of endotracheal intubation following spinal anesthesia for cesarean section.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the pen-operative course of parturients undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia at our institution from February 1991 to December 1993. If spinal failure occurred, 10 ml of sodium bicarbonate was administered by mouth prior to induction of general anesthesia.

Results: Among the 743 cases that we reviewed, spinal failure occurred in 15 patients (2%) because of inadequate analgesia in 14 patients (1.9%) and unexpected prolonged surgery for hysterectomy in one patient (0.1%). No patient required intubation due to excessive spinal block. In none of the patients was a record of pulmonary aspiration identified.

Conclusions: The extremely low incidence of spinal failure or excessive block necessitating endotracheal intuba­tion suggests that routine aspiration prophylaxis may not be necessary prior to spinal anesthesia. However, these results should be confirmed by a prospective, controlled study on larger populations. An antacid should be readily available and administered whenever general anesthesia is required.