Analysis of the U.S. Military Trauma System in Accordance With Doctrinal Levels of Warfare

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction In recent conflicts, the Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS) led the systematic approach to improve battlefield trauma care, substantially contributing to the unprecedented survival of combat casualties. The Joint Trauma System (JTS) was codified in 2016 to preserve the lessons learned and functions of the JTTS, including the Department of Defense Trauma Registry. Concurrently, Combatant Commands (CCMD) were directed to establish CCMD Trauma Systems (CTS) “modeled after the JTTS” and to maintain a baseline of core functions intended to rapidly scale as needed. The complex nature of both CCMDs and the military trauma system has challenged the full implementation of the CTS. Analyzing the historical experiences of the JTTS, JTS, and CTS within a military doctrinal framework might enable the further success of the military trauma system. Methods The strategic, operational, and tactical levels of warfare, in accordance with Joint Publication 1-0, Doctrine of the Armed Forces of the United States, and Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, established the analytic framework for this study. The literature regarding the JTTS, CTS, and JTS was reviewed for relevant information concerning organizational structure and functions of trauma system performance improvement (PI) capabilities. A comprehensive analysis was performed using a thematic approach to evaluating descriptive data contained within the collected data set. Deployed trauma system PI tasks, functions, and responsibilities were identified, defined, and correlated according to the respective levels of warfare. Results The comprehensive analysis revealed both discrete and overlapping tasks, functions, and responsibilities of the trauma system PI capabilities at each of the three levels of warfare. Strategic-level actions were categorized according to 12 distinct themes: reduce mortality; strategic reporting; centralized trauma registry; strategic communications; centralized organization; direct support to CCMDs; Department of Defense policy and doctrine; strategic-level PI; clinical practice guidelines; training and readiness standards; force structure, standardization, and interoperability; and research and development. Operational-level actions were categorized according to seven distinct themes: theater trauma system policies and requirements; theater trauma system leadership; stakeholder coordination; theater communication; theater standards for readiness and skill sustainment; trauma system planning; and medical logistics support. Tactical-level actions were categorized according to seven distinct themes: trauma system personnel; PI; documentation enforcement and patient care data collection; tactical planning recommendations for employing medical assets; research support; communication and reporting; and training and skills sustainment. Conclusion The deployed U.S. military trauma system requires a robust PI capability to optimize combat casualty care. Policy updates, a joint military trauma system doctrine, and force design updates are necessary for deployed military trauma system PI capabilities to function optimally across all levels of warfare.