Jennifer Louise Holland, P Cowie, L Gardner, J Mulae, S Richards, D A Holdsworth
{"title":"优化军事医学的调查途径:军事心肺运动试验诊所的操作影响。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
服务人员的异常心肺症状和调查结果通常导致长期调查和职业限制。这项分析旨在评估牛津军事心肺运动测试诊所(OMEC)对职业建议的影响,该诊所调查了这些症状和结果。方法:对所有5年期间的OMEC就诊情况进行服务评估。记录转诊指征和职业分级、人口统计学、运动测试参数、临床诊断和职业推荐。结果:141人复核。平均年龄36(±11.3)岁,男性占91%。预约的中位等待时间为14.4周(对比NHS 17.4周)。个体因呼吸困难(22.1%)、晕厥(11.4%)、胸痛(8.1%)(称为“高风险”症状组)、晕厥前期(8.1%)、心悸(8.1%)、疲劳和/或运动不耐受(6.0%)(称为“低风险”症状组)而被转诊。34%的患者无症状,只是在心脏筛查时偶然发现。运动能力下降是罕见的,只有11%的人受到影响,最坏的情况是边缘/轻微。高危症状组的VO2中位数峰值(占预测峰值的百分比)低于低危症状组(97.8% vs 121%;结论:OMEC是针对军事人口的独特需求量身定制的,提供支持作战要求的结果。尽管地理分布和业务承诺,OMEC的等待时间与NHS相当,绝大多数患者在就诊后升级。这些发现确立了OMEC作为基于公立(NHS)医院的军队特定临床服务的基准,突出了其在促进快速有效的职业管理方面的作用。
Optimising investigative pathways in military medicine: operational impact of a military cardiopulmonary exercise testing clinic.
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.