Cited by 16Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPoisoning and overdose treatmentsTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

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

Open access
Maddry, Joseph K., Sessions, Daniel, Heard, Kennon, Lappan, Charles, McManus, John, Bebarta, Vikhyat S.·2014·Journal of Medical Toxicology

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13181-014-0398-z

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maddry, J. K., Sessions, D., Heard, K., Lappan, C., McManus, J., & Bebarta, V. S.
Affiliations
  • Brooke Army Medical Center (US)
  • United States Army (US)
  • Augusta University (US)
Corresponding author
Maddry, Joseph K.
Venue
Journal of Medical Toxicology
Published
2014-04-22
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
261-265
ISSN
  • 1556-9039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-6995
OpenAlex
W2077892387
Cited by
16
References
16
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
2.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • U.S. Air Force
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Poisoning and overdose treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
telemedicine, snakebite, antivenom, chemical exposure, drug testing, substance abuse, combat medicine, resource-limited settings, military contractors, differential diagnosis, Army Medical Department, Iraq and Afghanistan deployment, non-battle injuries, occupational exposure
MeSH terms
Humans, Military Personnel, Physicians, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Warfare, Telemedicine, Remote Consultation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review