Conducting medical evacuations and other personnel recovery missions in Africa is challenging because of the continent's vast geographic scope and the small number of U.S. personnel scattered across it. This report studies the military medical literature and recent historical cases to explore the relationships between rescuability and time.

Timelines for Reaching Injured Personnel in Africa

Christopher A. Mouton, John P. Godges

ResearchPublished Nov 17, 2016

Conducting medical evacuations and other personnel recovery missions in Africa is challenging because of the continent's vast geographic scope and the small number of U.S. personnel scattered across it. This report studies the military medical literature and recent historical cases to explore the relationships between rescuability and time. Marginal changes in incident response times, given a baseline of 6 or 12 hours, do not correlate with dramatically different rescuability rates in the historical cases. Enhancements of the initial medical care provided can improve rescuability rates; however, providing even modestly improved care in an operational context may prove difficult. Future analyses can use the baseline results outlined here to assess the likely rescuability rates associated with alternative rescue options. The cost and effectiveness of options can then be determined and compared. The policy question revolves around balancing the benefits of speed and improved care with the operational, clinical, and financial costs.

Key Takeaways

The Results of Different Response Speeds Across Historical Cases and Care Roles Are Strikingly Consistent

  • Especially with a six-hour response time as a point of reference for reaching personnel with life-threatening injuries, the marginal changes in rescuability rates resulting from changes in response speeds of up to six hours in either direction (faster or slower) were very similar across the historical cases. Likewise, the performance of three different care roles did not produce dramatically different rescuability rates.
  • Relative to a standard six-hour response time, marginal increases in response speeds of two to four hours could increase rescuability rates roughly 7 to 16 percent, on average, while marginal decreases in response speeds of two to four hours could decrease rescuability rates roughly 5 to 9 percent, on average.
  • Relative to a standard 12-hour response time, marginal increases in response speeds of two to four hours would increase rescuability rates roughly 3 to 7 percent, on average, while marginal decreases in response speeds of two to four hours would decrease rescuability rates roughly 3 to 5 percent, on average.
  • A six-hour response time would result in 9 to 16 percent more personnel being rescued than would a 12-hour response time. A four-hour response time would result in 5 to 8 percent more personnel being rescued than would a six-hour response time. Likewise, a two-hour response time would result in 12 to 20 percent more personnel being rescued than would a six-hour response time.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Mouton, Christopher A. and John P. Godges, Timelines for Reaching Injured Personnel in Africa. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1536.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by Robert "Mike" Maxwell of the U.S. Africa Command and conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.