Putting the ready in readiness: A post hoc analysis of surgeon performance during a military mass casualty situation in Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: All military surgeons must maintain trauma capabilities for expeditionary care contexts, yet most are not trauma specialists. Maintaining clinical readiness for trauma and mass casualty care is a significant challenge for military and civilian surgeons. We examined the effect of a prescribed clinical readiness program for expeditionary trauma care on the surgical performance of 12 surgeons during a 60-patient mass-casualty situation (MASCAL). METHODS: The sample included orthopedic (four) and general surgeons (eight) who cared for MASCAL victims at Hamad Karzai International Airport, Kabul, Afghanistan, on August 26, 2021. One orthopedic and two general surgeons had prior deployment experience. The prescribed program included three primary measures of clinical readiness: 1, expeditionary knowledge (examination score); 2, procedural skills competencies (performance assessment score); and 3, clinical activity (operative practice profile metric). Data were attained from program records for each surgeon in the sample. Each of the 60 patient cases was reviewed and rated (performance score) by the Joint Trauma System's Performance Improvement Branch, a military-wide performance improvement organization. All scores were normalized to facilitate direct comparisons using effect size calculations between each predeployment measure and MASCAL surgical care. RESULTS: Predeployment knowledge and clinical activity measures met program benchmarks. Baseline predeployment procedural skills competency scores did not meet program benchmarks; however, those gaps were closed through retraining, ensuring all surgeons met or exceeded the program benchmarks predeployment. There were very large effect sizes (Cohen's d ) between all program measures and surgical care score, confirming the relationship between the program measures and MASCAL trauma care provided by the 12 surgeons. CONCLUSION: The prescribed program measures ensured that all surgeons achieved predeployment performance benchmarks and provided high-quality trauma care to our nation's service members. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Evaluation of urological and gynecological surgeons as force multipliers for mass casualty trauma care.

BACKGROUND: The clinical demands of mass casualty events strain even the most well-equipped trauma centers and are especially challenging in resource-limited rural, remote, or austere environments. Gynecologists and urologists care for patients with pelvic and abdominal injuries, but the extent to which they are able to serve as "force multipliers" for trauma care is unclear. This study examined the abilities of urologists and gynecologists to perform 32 trauma procedures after mentored training by expert trauma educators to inform the potential for these specialists to independently care for trauma patients. METHODS: Urological (6), gynecological surgeons (6), senior (postgraduate year 5) general surgery residents (6), and non-trauma-trained general surgeons (8) completed a rigorous trauma training program (Advanced Surgical Skills Exposure in Trauma Plus). All participants were assessed in their trauma knowledge and surgical abilities performing 32 trauma procedures before/after mentored training by expert trauma surgeons. Performance benchmarks were set for knowledge (80%) and independent accurate completion of all procedural components within a realistic time window (90%). RESULTS: General surgery participants demonstrated greater trauma knowledge than gynecologists and urologists; however, none of the specialties reached the 80% benchmark. Before training, general surgery, and urology participants outperformed gynecologists for overall procedural abilities. After training, only general surgeons met the 90% benchmark. Post hoc analysis revealed no differences between the groups performing most pelvic and abdominal procedures; however, knowledge associated with decision making and judgment in the provision of trauma care was significantly below the benchmark for gynecologists and urologists, even after training. CONCLUSION: For physiologically stable patients with traumatic injuries to the abdomen, pelvis, or retroperitoneum, these specialists might be able to provide appropriate care; however, they would best benefit trauma patients in the capacity of highly skilled assisting surgeons to trauma specialists. These specialists should not be considered for solo resuscitative surgical care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Upper-Extremity Vascular Exposures for Trauma: Comparative Performance Outcomes for General Surgeons and Orthopedic Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: As combat-related trauma decreases, there remains an increasing need to maintain the ability to care for trauma victims from other casualty events around the world (e.g., terrorism, natural disasters, and infrastructure failures). During these events, military surgeons often work closely with their civilian counterparts, often in austere and expeditionary contexts. In these environments, the primary aim of the surgical team is to implement damage control principles to avert blood loss, optimize oxygenation, and improve survival. Upper-extremity vascular injuries are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality resulting from exsanguination and ischemic complications; however, fatalities may be avoided if hemorrhage is rapidly controlled. In austere contexts, deployed surgical teams typically include one general surgeon and one orthopedic surgeon, neither of which have acquired the expertise to manage these vascular injuries. The purpose of this study was to examine the baseline capabilities of general surgeons and orthopedic surgeons to surgically expose and control axillary and brachial arteries and to determine if the abilities of both groups could be increased through a focused cadaver-based training intervention. METHODS: This study received IRB approval at our institution. Study methods included the use of cadavers for baseline assessment of procedural capabilities to expose and control axillary and brachial vessels, followed by 1:1 procedural training and posttraining re-assessment of procedural capabilities. Inferential analyses included ANOVA/MANOVA for within- and between-group effects (P < .05). Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d. RESULTS: Study outcomes demonstrated significant differences between the baseline performance abilities of the two groups, with general surgeons outperforming orthopedic surgeons. Before training, neither group reached performance benchmarks for overall or critical procedural abilities in exposing axillary and brachial vessels. Training led to increased abilities for both groups. There were statistically significant gains for overall procedural abilities, as well as for critical procedural elements that are directly associated with morbidity and mortality. These outcomes were consistent for both general and orthopedic surgeons. Effect sizes ranged between medium (general surgeons) and very large (orthopedic surgeons). CONCLUSION: There was a baseline capability gap for both general surgeons and orthopedic surgeons to surgically expose and control the axillary and brachial vessels. Outcomes from the course suggest that the methodology facilitates the acquisition of accurate and independent vascular procedural capabilities in the management of upper-extremity trauma injuries. The impact of this training for surgeons situated in expeditionary or remote contexts has direct relevance for caring for victims of extremity trauma. These outcomes underscore the need to train all surgeons serving in rural, remote, expeditionary, combat, or global health contexts to be able to competently manage extremity trauma and concurrent vascular injuries to increase the quality of care in those settings.

Five Influential Factors for Clinical Team Performance in Urgent, Emergency Care Contexts.

INTRODUCTION: In deployed contexts, military medical care is provided through the coordinated efforts of multiple interdisciplinary teams that work across and between a continuum of widely distributed role theaters. The forms these teams take, and functional demands, vary by roles of care, location, and mission requirements. Understanding the requirements for optimal performance of these teams to provide emergency, urgent, and trauma care for multiple patients simultaneously is critical. A team's collective ability to function is dependent on the clinical expertise (knowledge and skills), authority, experience, and affective management capabilities of the team members. Identifying the relative impacts of multiple performance factors on the accuracy of care provided by interdisciplinary clinical teams will inform targeted development requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A regression study design determined the extent to which factors known to influence team performance impacted the effectiveness of small, six to eight people, interdisciplinary teams tasked with concurrently caring for multiple patients with urgent, emergency care needs. Linear regression analysis was used to distinguish which of the 11 identified predictors individually and collectively contributed to the clinical accuracy of team performance in simulated emergency care contexts. RESULTS: All data met the assumptions for regression analyses. Stepwise linear regression analysis of the 11 predictors on team performance yielded a model of five predictors accounting for 82.30% of the variance. The five predictors of team performance include (1) clinical skills, (2) team size, (3) authority profile, (4) clinical knowledge, and (5) familiarity with team members. The analysis of variance confirmed a significant linear relationship between team performance and the five predictors, F(5, 240) = 218.34, P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this study demonstrate that the collective knowledge, skills, and abilities within an urgent, emergency care team must be developed to the extent that each team member is able to competently perform their role functions and that smaller teams benefit by being composed of clinical authorities who are familiar with each other. Ideally, smaller, forward-deployed military teams will be an expert team of individual experts, with the collective expertise and abilities required for their patients. This expertise and familiarity are advantageous for collective consideration of significant clinical details, potential alternatives for treatment, decision-making, and effective implementation of clinical skills during patient care. Identifying the most influential team performance factors narrows the focus of team development strategies to precisely what is needed for a team to optimally perform.

Dunning-Kruger Effect Between Self-Peer Ratings of Surgical Performance During a MASCAL Event and Pre-Event Assessed Trauma Procedural Capabilities.

Objectives: The research question asked to what extent do self-rated performance scores of individual surgeons correspond to assessed procedural performance abilities and to peer ratings of procedural performance during a mass casualty (MASCAL) event? Background: Self-assessment using performance rating scales is ubiquitous in surgical education as a proxy for direct measurement of competence. The validity and reliability of self-ratings as competency measures are susceptible to cognitive biases such as Dunning-Kruger effects, which describe how individuals over/underestimate their own performance compared to assessments from independent sources. The ability of surgeons to accurately self-assess their procedural performance remains undetermined. Methods: A purposive sample of military surgeons (N = 13) who collectively cared for trauma patients during a MASCAL event participated in the study. Pre-event performance assessment scores for 32 trauma procedures were compared with post-event self and peer performance ratings using F tests (P < 0.05) and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Results: There were no significant differences between peer ratings and performance assessment scores. There were significant differences between self-ratings and both peer ratings (P < 0.001) and performance assessment scores (P < 0.001). Effect sizes were very large for self to peer rating comparison (Cohen's d = 2.34) and self to performance assessment comparison (Cohen's d = 2.77). Conclusions: The outcomes demonstrate that self-ratings were significantly lower than the independently determined assessment scores for each surgeon, revealing a Dunning-Kruger effect for highly skilled individuals underestimating their abilities. These outcomes underscore the limitations of self-assessment for measuring competence.

Damage Control Resuscitation: A Narrative Review of Goals, Techniques, and Components.

Damage control resuscitation (DCR) simultaneously tackles hemorrhage control and balanced resuscitation in complex multisystem trauma patients. This technique can improve patient outcomes. This review outlines the importance of DCR with hemorrhage control and administration of fresh whole blood or component therapy if not available and avoiding crystalloid administration. Additionally, administration of tranexamic acid and calcium prove beneficial in critically ill trauma patients. Avoidance of acidosis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy remains a key but challenging goal of DCR.

Multi-institutional, prospective, observational study comparing the Gastrografin challenge versus standard treatment in adhesive small bowel obstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Existing trials studying the use of Gastrografin for management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) are limited by methodological flaws and small sample sizes. We compared institutional protocols with and without Gastrografin (GG), hypothesizing that a SBO management protocol utilizing GG is associated with lesser rates of exploration, shorter length of stay, and fewer complications. METHODS: A multi-institutional, prospective, observational study was performed on patients appropriate for GG with adhesive SBO. Exclusion criteria were internal/external hernia, signs of strangulation, history of abdominal/pelvic malignancy, or exploration within the past 6 weeks. Patients receiving GG were compared to patients receiving standard care without GG. RESULTS: Overall, 316 patients were included (58 ± 18 years; 53% male). There were 173 (55%) patients in the GG group (of whom 118 [75%] successfully passed) and 143 patients in the non-GG group. There were no differences in duration of obstipation (1.6 vs. 1.9 days, p = 0.77) or small bowel feces sign (32.9% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.14). Fewer patients in the GG protocol cohort had mesenteric edema on CT (16.3% vs. 29.9%; p = 0.009). There was a lower rate of bowel resection (6.9% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.001) and exploration rate in the GG group (20.8% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.0001). GG patients had a shorter duration of hospital stay (4 IQR 2-7 vs. 5 days IQR 2-12; p = 0.036) and a similar rate of complications (12.5% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.20). Multivariable analysis revealed that GG was independently associated with successful nonoperative management. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving Gastrografin for adhesive SBO had lower rates of exploration and shorter hospital length of stay compared to patients who did not receive GG. Adequately powered and well-designed randomized trials are required to confirm these findings and establish causality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level III.