Injured recruits misdiagnosed then dropped by military

[Nfld Sapper]

Mate... he's a Pte(R) I think he just pulled that unlawful order thing straight from his Mil Law lecture...

That he did MT but as being staff on his course I will refrain from commenting too much. But us as staff will not tell an injured candidate to just "soldier on". WE make the decision if we notice that a candidate is in injured ( as in the past weekend) WE make them sit out on PT (depending on the injury) and they become a grid reference for say weapons watch.

Butt me thinks you should sit back and make safe, and listen to some of the people here that have combats older than you have been walking the earth.

My 2 cents take them for what its worth.

 

[1feral1]

Moses smell the roses!

What has our army come to???

Next they will be questioning orders, if they are not already.

Even at the ripe old age of 48, when the SSM barks, I act without delay or question.

Shyte, maybe I am the dinasaur and out of step now.


Cheers,

WEs

 

[medaid]

That he did MT but as being staff on his course I will refrain from commenting too much. But us as staff will not tell an injured candidate to just "soldier on". WE make the decision if we notice that a candidate is in injured ( as in the past weekend) WE make them sit out on PT (depending on the injury) and they become a grid reference for say weapons watch.

Butt me thinks you should sit back and make safe, and listen to some of the people here that have combats older than you have been walking the earth.

My 2 cents take them for what its worth.

I've had really good course staff, and I've NEVER heard the term "soldier on" during my short continuing service. It's staff like NFLD Sapper and others who've been through that and know the harm that it can cause. I will no tell my troops to "soldier on" because that's probably one of the dumbest things I've heard. There's a time and place, and training just isn't it.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Moses smell the roses!

What has our army come to???

Next they will be questioning orders, if they are not already.

Even at the ripe old age of 48, when the SSM barks, I act without delay or question.

Shyte, maybe I am the dinasaur and out of step now.


Cheers,

WEs

I don't think you are that much out of step Wes, it just this damn new kinder gentler military stuff and alot of this comes from the higher ups (i.e. Brigade and Area)

 

[childs56]

On my Leadership no one came out right and said to Soldier on if you had an inujury. What was said is "if you fail to meet the objectives of this training scenerio then you will be RTU'd". It was clearly stated that you have the choice to carry on if you so choose to. And they did.

They hadnt been to the MIR yet, so no one new how hurt they were at that time.
I have seen with my own eyes in training where you were told to Soldier on.

Being prepared for marching the hills of Aganistan, ask 1RCHA or PPCLI if they were ready when they first deployed for mountain warefare. See what the AAR's were on that one.

The issue here is these people were hurt during basic training from what I read out of the article. Then misdiagnosed and let go after their injurys got to severe they could no longer work.

The military washed their hands of them. Not a all to uncommon thing for the Miltiary to do even for it's seasoned veterens.  Although I would like to have more info into this matter it does show case some of the stereo types our military has seen in the near past with it's medicle treatment of Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen.

Go to most bases and you can see people waiting for stress induced surgerys. Most of which have been misdiagnosed. This is why the Military has gone to a system now of sending injurys out to specialists once it is determined that it is beyond their scope of work. This new way of thinking has lead to a marginaly better system of getting troops fixed and back to their line of work. All bases suffer from this.
The old school Cyrpocal for above the waist and foot powder below the waist has long been gone but has not been forgotton  in some of the training enviroments.

Keep your eyes open as to what has happened, and what will happen, If you have never seen or expieranced this in our Military then good on you for not having to deal with this. If you have been one of the people who has seen first hand or had to deal with the system directly then my thoughts are with you and I hope a speady recovery to you.



 

 

[2 Cdo]

Being prepared for marching the hills of Aganistan, ask 1RCHA or PPCLI if they were ready when they first deployed for mountain warefare. See what the AAR's were on that one.

Physically ready? Yes. Kit wise ready, hell no, but that's really not applicable to this thread. Hope that answers your questions.

 

[maxdupuis]

There is such thing called an unlawful order. This means you cannot be ordered to do something in morel. If you are injured, to the point where you can't do a physical activity, then your instructors can notwill not make you do this, you'll go right back to MIR. If these recruits felt they shouldn't take part in what ever activity, they should have let the staff know. If they felt they could take part, and ended up that much more injured, then it is unfortunate. Shyte happens, people are misdiagnosed EVERY day in almost every hospital. I am sure the MIR staff didn't do it intentionally. But I feel for the injured recruits, must suck to be in that position the rest of their lives.

I was just responding to the quote where someone had made invalid comparisons and  in my post but if the medics say your good to go as far as your staff in basic training is concerned your good to go.
There could have been a number of problems here;
1) Misdiagnosed maybe but if the injury was that serious I imagine there would have been quite a bit of swelling
2) The private in training did not give the medic the proper information required
3) Like stated in a post before mine theres a chance that the injured person did not use the weekend to re couperate but rather did their own thing and soldiered through the pain to do it (maybe even in high heels dancing now theres a way to injure an ankle)
4) "Back home in Sydney, N.S., she said her civilian doctor was shocked to see that her ankle injury had gone untreated for two years"
"They actually found that my injury had gotten worse after walking on it for two years,"

So... best case scenario she was walking around and god knows what else on it for ~12 months after being discharged(with pain might I add) Maybe even wearing things like high heels and what not that do not provide much of support. Though it likely didn't take a year after her injury for her to get discharged so she was probably walking on it longer. She never even saw a civilian doctor... WHY? While I am not a medical professional nor do I have knowledge in sports medicine this likely caused the injury to worsen after she was no longer in the CF it might of not even required surgery had she gone a YEAR earlier.

 

[Roy Harding]

...

Shyte, maybe I am the dinasaur and out of step now.


Cheers,

WEs

It's not us, Wes - it's the rest of the world that's out of step. 

 

[Greymatters]

So... best case scenario she was walking around and god knows what else on it for ~12 months after being discharged(with pain might I add) Maybe even wearing things like high heels and what not that do not provide much of support. Though it likely didn't take a year after her injury for her to get discharged so she was probably walking on it longer. She never even saw a civilian doctor... WHY? While I am not a medical professional nor do I have knowledge in sports medicine this likely caused the injury to worsen after she was no longer in the CF it might of not even required surgery had she gone a YEAR earlier. 

No, No, NO!  No common sense allowed, it was obviously all the CF's fault!  :

 

[ModlrMike]

Here's a thought... RECRUIT SCHOOL IS NOT FAT CAMP!

 

[aesop081]

Here's a thought... RECRUIT SCHOOL IS NOT FAT CAMP!

Get back in the box you  :threat:

 

[scoutfinch]

Here's a thought... RECRUIT SCHOOL IS NOT FAT CAMP!

Hahahaha!

Too true.

 

[ModlrMike]

Get back in the box you  :threat:

Actually, I'll be back in the 'box' next week.

 

[childs56]

So then all her injurys initally occured when she fell during basic training, now as two years have elapsed she has prolonged the injury herself. After being told by a medicle professional (Mil Doc) that it was only a sprain. Finally she takes the time to see her doctor over this injury because it has become unbearable.

How many soldiers injure themselves to downplay it. Then three, four or many more years later come back to do a claim on that same injury because now it is bothering them???? Initally they had more then enough ample oppertunity to seek medicle care. Yet they didnt, why?  Over the next few years they have not only aggravated but also made worse the inital injury, Knees, backs and feet come to mind here. Think about it.

Wes I agree and disagree with your statements, very few times do I ever disagree with what you have posted, you seem to have your head on and use common sense when it comes to issues.

Once the Miltary accepts a Recruit they take full responsibiltie for the well being of that individual. Unless that individual has lied to gain enrollment. The full responsibilite is to provide proper training, food and instruction along with full medicle and dental care to that individual Full Stop...
From reading what was posted and reading a few more articles on this subject and watching the NEWs post about it. it seems these two individuals have a case agaisnt improper procedures on behalve of the doctors who treated them. That is the case here, not any other case. Untill both sides come to full light here who will really know what the end result will be.
More then likely the CF will offer a cash settlement and make any findings sealed untill a full and proper review has taken place.

Hopefully this will all come out and be dealt with properly and through the chain as it should be.
The end result should be better care and better monitering for the soldiers in their intial stages of training.

Other countries do it why dont we,

Remember foot inspections, 

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . There could have been a number of problems here;
1) Misdiagnosed maybe but if the injury was that serious I imagine there would have been quite a bit of swelling
2) The private in training did not give the medic the proper information required
3) Like stated in a post before mine theres a chance that the injured person did not use the weekend to re couperate but rather did their own thing and soldiered through the pain to do it (maybe even in high heels dancing now theres a way to injure an ankle)
4) "Back home in Sydney, N.S., she said her civilian doctor was shocked to see that her ankle injury had gone untreated for two years"
"They actually found that my injury had gotten worse after walking on it for two years,"

So... best case scenario she was walking around and god knows what else on it for ~12 months after being discharged(with pain might I add) Maybe even wearing things like high heels and what not that do not provide much of support. Though it likely didn't take a year after her injury for her to get discharged so she was probably walking on it longer. She never even saw a civilian doctor... WHY? While I am not a medical professional nor do I have knowledge in sports medicine this likely caused the injury to worsen after she was no longer in the CF it might of not even required surgery had she gone a YEAR earlier.

You make a lot of assumptions from scant information in a brief news article.  There is no info about the time frame between release from the CF and being seen by a civilian doctor (which isn't always an easy thing these days).  There is no info about any medical restrictions and recommendations that she may have been given at the time of the original injury or subsequently.

It is not a patient's responsibility to know what information the doctor wants.  It helps if the patient is able to be clear and concise about their history and symptoms, but it is the doctor's responsibility to properly question a patient in order to elicit the required info and to recognize and interpret the signs of injury and illness.

There seems to a tendency among some on these means to suggest that the women mentioned in the article were at fault for their own injuries.  Suggesting that the unsuccessful recruits were perhaps responsible for their own injuries or the media is just picking on the military is a somewhat defensive position and does not address any possible problems (and remedies) that the story brings to light.  The reality of the situation is that these women were recruited and enrolled into the Canadian Forces.  They met all the standards that was required of them by the recruiting system.  It is not solely their fault that they ended up in St. Jean in, as has been suggested, less than adequate physical condition.  And judging from some posts that are on this forum, they are not a rare phenomenon.  Just because they are that lowest form of the soldier species (recruit) does not mean they are disposable.  The article indicates that both of the women mentioned sustained injuries during training.  I've known hundreds(?) of trained soldiers who've twisted their ankles during PT and even one CSM who seriously injured his back when a "mound of dirt" on which he was standing collapsed.  I don't think they automatically assumed responsibility for their injuries when the CF98/SI was completed.

CFAO 24-6 -- INVESTIGATION OF INJURIES OR DEATH

29. Blame. Frequently, there is difficulty in determining blame as required by QR&O 21.47. Blame should be considered in the light of its dictionary meaning of "fixing responsibility". When determining blame, regard should be taken of all relevant circumstances. If a member is responsible in part for his own injuries or death a determination to that effect should be made. Conversely, if another person or persons are responsible in part for a member's injuries or death the findings of the investigation should so reflect. Generally, a member should not be considered to blame for his own injuries or death unless they resulted from wilful disobedience of orders, wilful self-inflicted wounding, or vicious or criminal conduct.

30. Attributability. As a general rule "attributable to military service" is interpreted as meaning "arose out of or was directly connected with service", and this meaning is also used when considering the aggravation of an existing injury or illness. While most injuries that occur while on duty are attributable to military service, the one does not necessarily follow the other. For instance, if a member was injured while on duty as a direct result of his improper conduct, it should not be considered attributable to military service. On the other hand, an injury might occur while not on duty but the circumstances make it attributable. For instance, if a member was injured not while on duty but as a result of the dangerous condition of military quarters, it could be considered attributable to service.

The assumption I make from the story is that the authorities accept that they probably screwed up on this one.

Mercier also said the recruits' experiences were not what they should have been.
"Things happen," he said. "Maybe we didn't help those people good enough. But I can tell you something, an interview like the one we are doing [with CBC News] now makes us look at how we do business how we can do business better in the future."

Though as unfortunate as the circumstances of these women are, they are but a minor element to what I see as the real issue (or what should be) in the story. 

According to the Canadian military, more than 3,500 recruits go through basic training at CFLRS every year. In 2007, there were 234 injury accidents and 644 recruits and officer cadets were put on medical restrictions.
About three-quarters of the recruits complete their training successfully, the military said.

What caught my eye is that twenty-five percent do not successfully complete recruit training.  It has spawned more questions for me and which hopefully should also be of concern to the CF. 
Is that 25% failure rate historically consistent with 2, 5, 10, 20 years ago.?
Has the failure rate increased or decreased since the cessation of EXPRES testing during the recuiting process? 
What percentage of failures are due:
- Medical reasons (breakdown by Musculo-skeletal injuries vice other medical causes)
- Disciplinary problems or inability to adapt to military life
- PO failures
- On request
What percentage of recruits who had been given medical restrictions complete basic training with their original serial or what is the average timeframe for completion with another serial?
Are there clinical practice guidelines (protocols) that the medical authorities use for screening and treatment of recruits?  If so, have these been validated and are they reviewed on a regular basis by the doctors/PAs who may use them?

 

[Greymatters]

What caught my eye is that twenty-five percent do not successfully complete recruit training.  It has spawned more questions for me and which hopefully should also be of concern to the CF. 
Is that 25% failure rate historically consistent with 2, 5, 10, 20 years ago.?
Has the failure rate increased or decreased since the cessation of EXPRES testing during the recuiting process? 
What percentage of failures are due:
- Medical reasons (breakdown by Musculo-skeletal injuries vice other medical causes)
- Disciplinary problems or inability to adapt to military life
- PO failures
- On request
What percentage of recruits who had been given medical restrictions complete basic training with their original serial or what is the average timeframe for completion with another serial?
Are there clinical practice guidelines (protocols) that the medical authorities use for screening and treatment of recruits?  If so, have these been validated and are they reviewed on a regular basis by the doctors/PAs who may use them? 

My memory of those times is distant, but I think I would have remembered if 25% of my course, or any other paralllel course at the time, had a 25% failure rate... and clarifying why they are failing/releasing/getting hurt at so high a level would answer a lot of questions...

 

[Wookilar]

My concern with all of this comes straight from personal experience while at CFLRS on BOTP. I injured myself (not intentionally mind you  ) while out in Farnham. It was an obvious incident, very visible, everyone saw me crumple into a little pile on the ground (I thought I would bounce more  ;D). My staff were excellent, got me on the truck, went to see the medic, excellent again, put me in the van back to St.Jean.

The Dr's there (2 of them, civy's) were freaking deplorable. In 13 years in, I've seen a few crazy things in MIR's, but these two clowns took the cake. I also  had "a sprain." They took x-rays, looked at them, sent me to the shacks for the night. I went back the next morning because of the pain, they were not listening to me at all. Between the x-ray tech and the MCpl there, I finally got sent down town to the hospital with the same x-rays in hand. 12 hours later I'm in surgery getting 4 screws put in my leg to fix 3 breaks. How did they miss that and call it a sprain?

There is a possibility here that we may have a larger problem here than out-of-shape recruits, and it comes down to whether some of the support people we have hired really give a darn about us or just the fact that it's almost 4 pm and it's time for them to book off. At CFLRS, I never had one problem with any of the medical staff in uniform and I never had a good experience with any civilian med staff. That's just me of course, but I wonder if ti was the same civy Dr's that looked at the recruit that looked at me.

Wook

 

[Bigrex]

well the only real negative experience I've had with any uniformed med techs was in 97, after breaking a finger playing basketball in Norfolk VA. The staff down there placed the finger in traction and casted it with the pinky extended, but after getting back to Halifax they cut the cast off and put it in a removable splint in a position of function (bent, holding onto a roll of gause) and after a few days i told a Sgt that I had to go see for a recheck that it looked like the finger was shorter, And he said it was due to the swelling, and when i pressed it, he looked at me and "oh really, and where did you get your medical degree?", it was my frikin finger! But i was vindicated because the next time I saw him he apologized because x-rays showed that the bone had splintered and was floating around, and the actual finger was now 4mm shorter due to losing that bone. I realize these guys are trained and all, but they are still human, and they need to learn that we know our own bodies better than they know physiology, so when we point out something that is wrong, they shouldn't brush it off because it may not be a symptom of what has been diagnosed but it could be from some underlying condition that was previously missed.

 

[TCBF]

... What caught my eye is that twenty-five percent do not successfully complete recruit training.  It has spawned more questions for me and which hopefully should also be of concern to the CF. 
Is that 25% failure rate historically consistent with 2, 5, 10, 20 years ago.?
Has the failure rate increased or decreased since the cessation of EXPRES testing during the recuiting process? 
What percentage of failures are due:
- Medical reasons (breakdown by Musculo-skeletal injuries vice other medical causes)
- Disciplinary problems or inability to adapt to military life
- PO failures
- On request
What percentage of recruits who had been given medical restrictions complete basic training with their original serial or what is the average timeframe for completion with another serial?
Are there clinical practice guidelines (protocols) that the medical authorities use for screening and treatment of recruits?  If so, have these been validated and are they reviewed on a regular basis by the doctors/PAs who may use them?

- I was a recruit platoon instructor in Cornwallis, and put through a little over 500 recruits there.  Wastage occurred for the fol reasons:
1.  Shoddy medicals not catching previously existing medical conditions (metal bracket holding spine together, etc.).
2.  Injuries during training - many recruits had never worn real leather footwear (or even shoes with laces before) and ten weeks was too quick to bring them up to the level of fitness without hurting their knees.
3. Failure to adapt to military life for psycho-social reasons - shoddy CFRC procedures (stop sending me "3"s!!).
All in all, the final success rate was about 85%, but that included pers gradding after three re-courses.  Obviously, the platoon succes rate was somewhat lower.

I then had the pleasure of teaching recruits at St-Jean.  Wastage occurred for the fol reasons:
1. Shoddy medicals not catching pre-existing medical issues.
2. Injuries during training.  An even less active generation now had only 80% of the time to get up to physical standard - with predictable results.
3.  Failure to adapt to military life.  This ratio was much higher in St-Jean.  My first platoon, I developed Cornwallis style, which was 'give the slow ones a chance to catch up if you can'.  When the RSM saw a frontage of twenty (a platoon of 58, if I recall) on the Sixth Week Drill Test he was shocked. "You have too many people!" he said.  It appears that the climate of command there merited their instructors on the perfection of the final product, not the overall success of the platoon.  Remember, on an eight week course, you had to have started to assess your recruits on Week One and have started to have failed those you perceived as discards on Week Two, or you would never be rid of them by Week Six and they would sewer your 6th Week Drill Test (and your PER).

You can imagine what happened next:  Platoons would commence with sixty and grad 28 to 36, sometimes INCLUDING recourses in.  A sixty man platoon might cycle through 84 people and grad 46.

A very expensive, inefficient and wasteful way to do business.

My suggestions: 
1. Enrol as "full time part-time" on a six month contract. sort of like the RCMP do.
2. Immediately release previously existing medical conditions that were not picked up on the initial Part 2. Release authority to be the Recruit School, NOT Ottawa.
3. MMPI 2 EVERY recruit - no excuse not to.
4. Anyone who has not passed BRT after six months for any reason does not get to sign a regular contract. Release on new release item: "Not Economically Trainable."

 

[ModlrMike]

My suggestions: 
1. Enrol as "full time part-time" on a six month contract. sort of like the RCMP do.
2. Immediately release previously existing medical conditions that were not picked up on the initial Part 2. Release authority to be the Recruit School, NOT Ottawa.
3. MMPI 2 EVERY recruit - no excuse not to.
4. Anyone who has not passed BRT after six months for any reason does not get to sign a regular contract. Release on new release item: "Not Economically Trainable."

Good ideas all around. My comments on each item:

1. Can be achieved by enrolling them on an FPS of six months. Upon graduation, TOS are converted to BE/VIE/IE as appropriate.
2. Agree. Release item should be 1D (Fraudulent Enrolment). We need to be certain that we focus solely on undisclosed pre-enrolment medical conditions. Exacerbations of disclosed pre-enrolment conditions require a different approach.
3. Absolutely! Good due diligence.
4. Could probably be rolled into the existing 5D by creating another paragraph: Unable to complete Recruit Training.