Optimising investigative pathways in military medicine: operational impact of a military cardiopulmonary exercise testing clinic.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jennifer Louise Holland, P Cowie, L Gardner, J Mulae, S Richards, D A Holdsworth
{"title":"Optimising investigative pathways in military medicine: operational impact of a military cardiopulmonary exercise testing clinic.","authors":"Jennifer Louise Holland, P Cowie, L Gardner, J Mulae, S Richards, D A Holdsworth","doi":"10.1136/military-2024-002872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Abnormal cardiorespiratory symptoms and investigative findings in service personnel typically result in prolonged investigation and occupational restriction. This analysis aimed to assess the impact of the <i>O</i>xford <i>M</i>ilitary Cardiopulmonary <i>E</i>xercise Testing <i>C</i>linic (OMEC), which investigates such symptoms and findings, on occupational recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A service evaluation was conducted on all OMEC attendances over a 5-year period. Referral indication and occupational grading, demographics, exercise testing parameters, clinical diagnosis and occupational recommendation were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>141 individuals were reviewed. Mean age was 36 (±11.3) years, and 91% were male. Median waiting time for an appointment was 14.4 weeks (cf NHS 17.4 weeks).Individuals were referred for dyspnoea (22.1%), syncope (11.4%), chest pain (8.1%) (referred to as 'higher risk' symptom group), and pre-syncope (8.1%), palpitations (8.1%), and fatigue and/or exercise intolerance (6.0%) (referred to as 'lower risk' symptom group). 34% were asymptomatic with incidental findings on cardiac screening investigations. Reduced exercise capacity was rare, affecting only 11% of individuals, which was borderline/mild at worst.Median peak VO<sub>2</sub> (as a percentage of the predicted peak) was lower in the higher-risk symptom group than in the lower-risk symptom group (97.8% vs 121%; p<0.001). This was also seen for median workload as %PP (82.6% vs 98.0%; p<0.001). 80.5% of patients were given an immediate occupational recommendation; 78% of which were favourable outcomes (ie, a recommended occupational upgrade (72%) or to remain fully deployable (6%)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OMEC is tailored to the unique needs of the military population, providing outcomes that support operational requirements. Despite geographical distribution and operational commitments, OMEC waiting time is equivalent to the NHS, with the great majority of patients upgraded after attendance. These findings establish OMEC as a benchmark for military-specific clinical services based in public (NHS) hospitals, highlighting its role in facilitating rapid and effective occupational management.</p>","PeriodicalId":48485,"journal":{"name":"Bmj Military Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bmj Military Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/military-2024-002872","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Abnormal cardiorespiratory symptoms and investigative findings in service personnel typically result in prolonged investigation and occupational restriction. This analysis aimed to assess the impact of the Oxford Military Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Clinic (OMEC), which investigates such symptoms and findings, on occupational recommendations.

Methods: A service evaluation was conducted on all OMEC attendances over a 5-year period. Referral indication and occupational grading, demographics, exercise testing parameters, clinical diagnosis and occupational recommendation were recorded.

Results: 141 individuals were reviewed. Mean age was 36 (±11.3) years, and 91% were male. Median waiting time for an appointment was 14.4 weeks (cf NHS 17.4 weeks).Individuals were referred for dyspnoea (22.1%), syncope (11.4%), chest pain (8.1%) (referred to as 'higher risk' symptom group), and pre-syncope (8.1%), palpitations (8.1%), and fatigue and/or exercise intolerance (6.0%) (referred to as 'lower risk' symptom group). 34% were asymptomatic with incidental findings on cardiac screening investigations. Reduced exercise capacity was rare, affecting only 11% of individuals, which was borderline/mild at worst.Median peak VO2 (as a percentage of the predicted peak) was lower in the higher-risk symptom group than in the lower-risk symptom group (97.8% vs 121%; p<0.001). This was also seen for median workload as %PP (82.6% vs 98.0%; p<0.001). 80.5% of patients were given an immediate occupational recommendation; 78% of which were favourable outcomes (ie, a recommended occupational upgrade (72%) or to remain fully deployable (6%)).

Conclusion: OMEC is tailored to the unique needs of the military population, providing outcomes that support operational requirements. Despite geographical distribution and operational commitments, OMEC waiting time is equivalent to the NHS, with the great majority of patients upgraded after attendance. These findings establish OMEC as a benchmark for military-specific clinical services based in public (NHS) hospitals, highlighting its role in facilitating rapid and effective occupational management.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bmj Military Health
Bmj Military Health MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
116
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信