Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Case ascertainment of heat illness in the British Army: evidence of under-reporting from analysis of Medical and Command notifications, 2009–2013
  1. Michael J Stacey1,2,
  2. S Brett1,3,
  3. D Woods2,4,
  4. S Jackson5 and
  5. D Ross5
  1. 1Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Military Medicine, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK
  3. 3Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, Greater London, UK
  4. 4Carnegie Research Institute, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
  5. 5Army Health Unit, Army Medical Directorate, Camberley, UK
  1. Correspondence to Maj Michael John Stacey, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London W120HS, UK; M.stacey13{at}imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Heat illness in the Armed Forces is considered preventable. The UK military relies upon dual Command and Medical reporting for case ascertainment, investigation of serious incidents and improvement of preventive practices and policy. This process could be vulnerable to under-reporting.

Objectives To establish whether heat illness in the British Army has been under-reported, by reviewing concordance of reporting to the Army Incident Notification Cell (AINC) and the Army Health Unit (AHU) and to characterise the burden of heat illness reported by these means.

Methods Analysis of anonymised reporting databases held by the AHU and AINC, for the period 2009–2013.

Results 565 unique cases of heat illness were identified. Annual concordance of reporting ranged from 9.6% to 16.5%. The overall rate was 13.3%. July was the month with the greatest number of heat illness reports (24.4% of total reporting) and the highest concordance rate (30%). Reports of heat illness from the UK (n=343) exceeded overseas notifications (n=221) and showed better concordance (17.1% vs 12.8%). The annual rate of reported heat illness varied widely, being greater in full-time than reservist personnel (87 vs 23 per100 000) and highest in full-time untrained personnel (223 per100 000).

Conclusions The risk of heat illness was global, year-round and showed dynamic local variation. Failure to dual-report casualties impaired case ascertainment of heat illness across Command and Medical chains. Current preventive guidance, as applied in training and on operations, should be critically evaluated to ensure that risk of heat illness is reduced as low as possible. Clear procedures for casualty notification and surveillance are required in support of this and should incorporate communication within and between the two reporting chains.

  • EPIDEMIOLOGY
  • OCCUPATIONAL & INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE
  • PREVENTIVE MEDICINE

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors MJS is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. All authors meet the authorship criteria endorsed by BMJ: substantial contributions to the conception of the work; drafting and revising the work critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.