• Hyun Kyoung Na, Pamela Z Cacchione, Jeremy Cannon, C William Schwab, and Jay A Yelon.
• Navy Medicine Operational Training Command, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
• Mil Med. 2024 Sep 26.

BackgroundMilitary-civilian partnerships (MCP) provide a bidirectional exchange of information and trauma best practices. In 2021, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center and the U.S. Navy signed a 3-year memorandum of understanding to embed active duty trauma providers into the Trauma Division to facilitate the training and sustainment of combat casualty care (CCC) skills. To date, there is little evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of military-civilian partnerships in maintaining combat casualty readiness in non-physician trauma providers.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of combat casualty readiness for non-physician providers by mapping clinical experiences in an urban Level I trauma center against the Defense Health Agency's Joint Trauma Systems (JTS) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). The JTS CPGs provide best practices for CCCand highlight the critical skills providers need to know before deploying to an austere environment. Patient acuity data and specific JTS CPG skills performed by a non-physician providers were collected in their respective specialties for each patient seen between January 2023 to January 2024. Analyses were performed using descriptive statistics via Redcap.ResultsA sample of 6 Navy personnel in different specialties: 1 Physician Assistant, 3 Registered Nurses (emergency medicine, perioperative, critical care), and 2 corpsmen (scrub tech and search & rescue/prehospital medic) completed 1299 records on patients treated. In all, 685 (52.7%) were trauma patients and 614 (47.3%) were non-trauma patients. Categories of injuries seen, listed from the most frequent to the least, were as follows: Other (764), Falls (250), Motor Vehicle Crashes (164), Gunshot Wound (126), Stab-related injuries (41). Category 1 skills, defined as "essential to know," were performed in 921 (36.1%) of the patients treated. In Category 2, skills described as "important to know" were performed in 889 (34.8%) of the patients treated. Category 3 skills, identified as "less urgent" as they are rare among trauma patients, were performed in 486 (19.0%) of the patients treated, and 252 (9.8%) required none of the JTS CPG skills. These categories were further broken down based on the frequency of the skills performed. Analysis revealed strengths and identified opportunities to direct clinical experience for underperforming skills.ConclusionMilitary-civilian partnerships support CCC readiness. The data presented and the continuation of mapping personnel's clinical experience to military CPGs can gauge readiness in non-physician trauma providers. Notably, several skills in each category were identified as opportunities to modify the clinical exposure of the military provider. These findings indicate that modifications in clinical assignments could enhance active duty combat casualty readiness in these critical skills.Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2024. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

14 keywords...

hide…