Here, we report the first known transcontinental aeromedical evacuation of a large number (55) of patients with known and suspected positive COVID-19. These patients were evacuated from Havana, Cuba, to the UK through MOD Boscombe Down as part of Operation BROADSHARE, the British military's overseas response to COVID-19. We describe the safe transfer of patients with COVID-19 using a combined military-civilian model. In our view, we have demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 can be aeromedically transferred while ensuring the safety of patients and crew using a hybrid military-civilian model; this report contains lessons for future aeromedical evacuation of patients with COVID-19.Burns are an unpredictable element of the modern battlespace and humanitarian operations. Most military burns are small and may not be a significant challenge for deployed healthcare assets but usually render the individual combat ineffective until healed. However, larger burns represent a more significant challenge because of the demand for fluid resuscitation therapy, early surgical intervention and regular wound management that can rapidly deplete surgical capabilities. Beyond the initial injury, longer-term consequences, such as psychological morbidity and loss of functional independence, are rarely considered as part of an ongoing care plan. Globally, most of the morbidity and mortality associated with burns are seen in less economically developed countries and are frequently associated with conflicts and natural disasters, but with simple interventions and resources, outcomes in these environments can be markedly improved. Prehospital providers should be confident to manage the initial assessment of a burn, including triaging for evacuation and packaging for safe transfer. This article provides an overview for prehospital providers on the management of thermal burns in military and humanitarian settings, with additional considerations for the management of chemical and electrical injuries.
  Harmful or risky-single occasion drinking (RSOD) alcohol use in the military is a significant problem. However, most studies of interventions have focused on veterans, representing a missed opportunity for intervention with active military personnel. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework, the aim of this systematic review was to analyse and synthesise the evidence related to workplace-based interventions for reducing alcohol use in active-duty military personnel.
 
  Four electronic databases and reference lists of relevant articles were searched from database inception until 20 January 2020. This review focused on experimental and quasi-experimental studies of active-duty military personnel. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were independently performed by two reviewers using a standardised checklist. A third reviewer was used to arbitrate the disputed studies for final selection.
 
  The search yielded seven studies from an initial low-up is minimised.
 The low methodological rigour of most studies limited the capacity to demonstrate the efficacy of the interventions studied. Given the importance of reducing harmful or RSOD use of alcohol in the military, future studies would benefit from improved methodological rigour including ensuring adequate study power, randomisation, selection of validated outcome measures, including measures other than consumption (eg, attitudinal measures), and longer-term follow-up.  https://www.selleckchem.com/CDK.html  There is also a need to develop methods that ensure participant loss to follow-up is minimised.The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated unprecedented change within the NHS. Some medical staff have been deployed into unfamiliar roles, while others have been exposed to innovative ways of working. The embedded military Trauma and Orthopaedic (T&O) cadre have been integral to this change. Many of these new skills and ways of working learnt will be transferable to deployed environments. Feedback from the T&O military cadre highlighted key areas of learning as changes in T&O services, use of technology, personal protective equipment, redeployment and training. This paper aims to discuss how these changes were implement and how they could be used within future military roles. The T&O cadre played important roles within their NHS trusts and the skills they learnt will broaden their skills and knowledge for future deployments.
  UK guidelines suggest that pulse oximetry, rather than blood gas sampling, is adequate for monitoring of patients with COVID-19 if CO
  retention is not suspected. However, pulse oximetry has impaired accuracy in certain patient groups, and data are lacking on its accuracy in patients with COVID-19 stepping down from intensive care unit (ICU) to non-ICU settings or being transferred to another ICU.
 
  We assessed the bias, precision and limits of agreement using 90 paired SpO
  and SaO
  from 30 patients (3 paired samples per patient). To assess the agreement between pulse oximetry (SpO
  ) and arterial blood gas analysis (SaO
  ) in patients with COVID-19, deemed clinically stable to step down from an ICU to a non-ICU ward, or be transferred to another ICU. This was done to evaluate whether the guidelines were appropriate for our setting.
 
  Mean difference between SaO
  and SpO
  (bias) was 0.4%, with an SD of 2.4 (precision). The limits of agreement between SpO
  and SaO
  were as follows upper limit of 5.2% (95% CI 6.5% to 4.2%) and lower limit of -4.3% (95% CI -3.4% to -5.7%).
 
  In our setting, pulse oximetry showed a level of agreement with SaO
  measurement that was slightly suboptimal, although within acceptable levels for Food and Drug Authority approval, in people with COVID-19 judged clinically ready to step down from ICU to a non-ICU ward, or who were being transferred to another hospital's ICU. In such patients, SpO
  should be interpreted with caution. Arterial blood gas assessment of SaO
  may still be clinically indicated.
 In our setting, pulse oximetry showed a level of agreement with SaO2 measurement that was slightly suboptimal, although within acceptable levels for Food and Drug Authority approval, in people with COVID-19 judged clinically ready to step down from ICU to a non-ICU ward, or who were being transferred to another hospital's ICU. In such patients, SpO2 should be interpreted with caution. Arterial blood gas assessment of SaO2 may still be clinically indicated.