USA TODAY Article on Mil. Med. in Iraq

[AFSmiley]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Here's an article from the Monday issue of USA Today. I read it and thought it was pretty amazing. For those of you who are on active duty or were just discharged, do you think the branches are doing a decent job of integrating their medical care capabilities? How much more effective is this system than what was in place in Desert Storm? What about the Navy's Hospital ships, what is their role in this sort of conflict? Thanks for your thoughts!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...ifesavingknowledgeinnovationemergeinwarclinic

 

[Galo]

There was a recent article posted somewhere here by a Navy 0-6 who gets it.

He made a very harsh criticism of the deployment capabilities and functions. I think his name is Rappaport.

Other Navy guys on this forum should be able to comment more effectively.


As far as AF, let me preface this comment by saying I was never deployed, but my close friends were. I've posted this before. He was deployed for a cumulative time of 8 months, and in that time he did less than 8 cases. Another was deployed for 3 months and did 3 cases. There is a wide miscommunication, and mismanagement of assets like general and orthopeodic surgeons, at least in the AF side where you are deployed to places you are there just for show.

The army has much busier centers, and until recently, the AF took over one of them, so AF guys were finally able to do some of what they were trained to do, but only at that place. May have been Falluja.

The af is basically a glorified taxi service, and the people doing the transport are generally good nurses.

 

[island doc]

Here's an article from the Monday issue of USA Today. I read it and thought it was pretty amazing. For those of you who are on active duty or were just discharged, do you think the branches are doing a decent job of integrating their medical care capabilities? How much more effective is this system than what was in place in Desert Storm? What about the Navy's Hospital ships, what is their role in this sort of conflict? Thanks for your thoughts!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...ifesavingknowledgeinnovationemergeinwarclinic

Assuming this is all true, it exemplifies what military medicine does best: battlefield medicine and surgery, not what it does worst: peacetime routine healthcare.

 

[AFSmiley]

Assuming this is all true, it exemplifies what military medicine does best: battlefield medicine and surgery, not what it does worst: peacetime routine healthcare.

So do you think integrating more military medical units into disaster response worldwide would help to keep those skills up in peacetime? I know the MOI's would be different in a hurricane, tsunami, etc, but wouldn't units still benefit going through the logistics of setting up hospitals and moving casualties across the globe in a timely fashion to reach definitive care at major medical centers?

 

[island doc]

So do you think integrating more military medical units into disaster response worldwide would help to keep those skills up in peacetime? I know the MOI's would be different in a hurricane, tsunami, etc, but wouldn't units still benefit going through the logistics of setting up hospitals and moving casualties across the globe in a timely fashion to reach definitive care at major medical centers?

A good idea

 

[AFSmiley]

Assuming this is all true, it exemplifies what military medicine does best: battlefield medicine and surgery, not what it does worst: peacetime routine healthcare.

What do you think the system would have to do to resolve the dichotomy? Perhaps outsourcing more routine healthcare responsibilities to civilian providers is a solution. Let's say you recruit a lot more civilian physicians to staff major medical centers. IF you can get a decent contract which clearly states they're undeployable, provides them the oppurtunity to take care of soldiers, and gives comprable pay, I bet there are doctors out there who would take the oppurtunity. I'm sure it would cost a pretty penny to hire and retain civilian healthcare professionals, but it would free up more military doctors to go to the field to take care of those in harm's way, and provide better healthcare on base. A win win situation?

 

[chopper]

What do you think the system would have to do to resolve the dichotomy? Perhaps outsourcing more routine healthcare responsibilities to civilian providers is a solution. Let's say you recruit a lot more civilian physicians to staff major medical centers. IF you can get a decent contract which clearly states they're undeployable, provides them the oppurtunity to take care of soldiers, and gives comprable pay, I bet there are doctors out there who would take the oppurtunity. I'm sure it would cost a pretty penny to hire and retain civilian healthcare professionals, but it would free up more military doctors to go to the field to take care of those in harm's way, and provide better healthcare on base. A win win situation?

Well, if you can find a group of people who want to be deployed all the time, then yes. I think you need to find a viable plan that doesn't over-deploy doctors, and gives them meaningful workloads when they are between deployments.

 

[bobbyseal]

Here's an article from the Monday issue of USA Today. I read it and thought it was pretty amazing. For those of you who are on active duty or were just discharged, do you think the branches are doing a decent job of integrating their medical care capabilities? How much more effective is this system than what was in place in Desert Storm? What about the Navy's Hospital ships, what is their role in this sort of conflict? Thanks for your thoughts!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...ifesavingknowledgeinnovationemergeinwarclinic

There are urologists deployed to Iraq. Bummer...