Refocusing the Military Health System to Support Role 4 Definitive Care in future large-scale combat operations.

ABSTRACT: The last twenty years of sustained combat operations during the Global War on Terror generated significant advancements in combat casualty care. Improvements in point-of-injury, en route, and forward surgical care appropriately aligned with the survival, evacuation, and return to duty needs of the small-scale unconventional conflict. However, casualty numbers in large-scale combat operations have brought into focus the critical need for modernized casualty receiving and convalescence: Role 4 definitive care (R4DC). Historically, World War II was the most recent conflict in which the United States fought in multiple operational theaters, with hundreds of thousands of combat casualties returned to the continental United States. These numbers necessitated the establishment of a "Zone of the Interior" which integrated military and civilian healthcare networks for definitive treatment and rehabilitation of casualties. Current security threats demand refocusing and bolstering the Military Health System's definitive care capabilities to maximize its force regeneration capacity in a similar fashion. Medical force generation, medical force sustainment and readiness, and integrated casualty care capabilities are three pillars that must be developed for MHS readiness of Role 4 definitive care in future large-scale contingencies against near-peer/peer adversaries.

What Does the Military Health System Need to Support Future Combat Operations? Lessons from Aeromedical Evacuations from 2008 to 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Aeromedical evacuations from the past few decades have yielded massive amounts of data that may inform the Military Health System (MHS) on patient needs, specifically for understanding the inpatient and outpatient needs of evacuees. In this study, we evaluate inpatient and outpatient trends based on aeromedical evacuation data from recent conflicts. We anticipate that evacuations requiring MHS inpatient beds are primarily trauma-related and necessitate an increased need for inpatient trauma care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of aeromedical evacuations using the U.S. Transportation Command Regulating and Command & Control Evacuation System database. We queried the database for aeromedical evacuations originating from the U.S. EUCOM and ending in the CONUS, from January 1, 2008 to June 4, 2020. With the resultant data, evacuee demographics were characterized by gender, age, active duty (AD) versus non-AD, and branch of service. Following this, the proportion of battle injury to disease and non-battle injury was categorized by both patient age ranges and year. Additionally, evacuations were stratified by their ICD codes, as well as the primary specialty responsible for care. Lastly, evacuations were categorized by inpatient and outpatient care status. RESULTS: The final dataset yielded 32,485 unique patients. The majority of evacuees were male (86.9%) with a mean age of 29.0 ± 9.6 years. Evacuees were primarily AD Military (96.7%), with the majority of those personnel being in the Army (70.2%). The total number of evacuations steadily increased from 2008 (n = 3,703) until a peak in 2010 (n = 4,929), which was also the peak year for battle injury (n = 1,472). Battle injury was also most prevalent in the 21 to 24 age group (24.7%) and declined in older age groups. Regarding diagnoses, the leading categories were injury/poisoning (33.1%), psychiatric (28.1%), and musculoskeletal (12.1%). As for specialty care of evacuees, psychiatry received the largest share of total evacuations (28.1%), followed by orthopedic surgery (22.7%) and general surgery (8.6%). Looking at proportions of inpatient and outpatient care, the majority of evacuees required outpatient care (65.6%) with a sizable minority requiring inpatient care (34.4%). Inpatient evacuations peaked in 2010 (n = 2,013), accounting for 40.8% of all evacuations that year. Orthopedic surgery had the largest share of inpatient evacuations (27.3%), followed by psychiatry (21.5%) and general surgery (18.2%). As for outpatient care, the specialties with the largest proportion of outpatient evacuations were psychiatry (33.6%), orthopedic surgery (20.3%), and neurology (9.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study reveal what the MHS can expect in future conflicts. Most evacuations are for psychiatric-/injury-/musculoskeletal-related diagnoses, typically requiring care by psychiatrists, orthopedic surgeons, or general surgeons. Outpatient care is important, though it is critical to bolster inpatient care requirements as future conflicts may bring extensive numbers of inpatient casualties. The MHS should program and plan resources accordingly, planning for the care of surgical/injured and psychiatric patients.

Quality of Integration of Air Force Trauma Surgeons Within the Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills, Cincinnati: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: While previous studies have analyzed military surgeon experience within military-civilian partnerships (MCPs), there has never been an assessment of how well military providers are integrated within an MCP. The Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills, Cincinnati supports the Critical Care Air Transport Advanced Course and maintains the clinical skills of its staff by embedding them within the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. We hypothesized that military trauma surgeons are well integrated within University of Cincinnati Medical Center and that they are exposed to a similar range of complex surgical pathophysiology as their civilian partners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were abstracted from billing data for trauma surgeons covering University of Cincinnati Hospitals in 2019. The number of trauma resuscitations and patient acuity metrics were abstracted from the Trauma Registry and surgeon Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities clinical activity (KSA-CA) scores were calculated using their CPT codes. Finally, surgeon case distributions were studied by sorting their CPT codes into 23 categories based on procedure type and anatomic location. Appropriate, chi-squared or Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare these metrics between the military and civilian surgeon groups and the metrics were normalized by the group's full-time equivalent (FTE) to adjust for varying weeks on service between groups. RESULTS: Data were available for two active duty military and nine civilian staff. The FTEs were significantly lower in the military group: military 0.583-0.583 (median 0.583) vs. civilian 0.625-1.165 (median 1.0), P = 0.04. Per median FTE and surgeon number, both groups performed a similar number of trauma resuscitations (civilian 214 ± 54 vs. military 280 ± 13, P = 0.146) and KSA-CA points (civilian 55,629 ± 25,104 vs. military 36,286 ± 11,267; P = 0.582). Although the civilian surgeons had a higher proportion of hernia repairs (P < 0.001) and laparoscopic procedures (P = 0.006), the CPT code categories most relevant to combat surgery (those relating to solid organ, hollow viscus, cardiac, thoracic, abdominal, and tissue debridement procedures) were similar between the surgeon groups. Finally, patient acuity metrics were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first assessment of U.S. Air Force trauma surgeon integration relative to their civilian partners within an MCP. Normalized by FTE, there was no difference between the two groups' trauma experience to include patient acuity metrics and KSA-CA scores. The proportion of CPT codes that was most relevant to expeditionary surgery was similar between the military and civilian partners, thus optimizing the surgical experience for the military trauma surgeons within University of Cincinnati Medical Center. The methods used within this pilot study can be generalized to any American College of Surgeons verified Trauma Center MCP, as standard databases were used.

Disaster planning for a surgical surge: when mass trauma threatens to overwhelm your operating rooms.

Mass casualty events particularly those requiring multiple simultaneous operating rooms are of increasing concern. Existing literature predominantly focuses on mass casualty care in the emergency department. Hospital disaster plans should include a component focused on preparing for multiple simultaneous operations. When developing this plan, representatives from all segments of the perioperative team should be included. The plan needs to address activation, communication, physical space, staffing, equipment, blood and medications, disposition offloading, special populations, and rehearsal.

Are trauma surgeons prepared? A survey of trauma surgeons' disaster preparedness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: US trauma centers (TCs) must remain prepared for mass casualty incidents (MCIs). However, trauma surgeons may lack formal MCI training. The recent COVID-19 pandemic drove multiple patient surges, overloaded Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies, and stressed TCs. This survey assessed trauma surgeons' MCI training, experience, and system and personal preparedness before the pandemic compared with the pandemic's third year. Methods: Survey invitations were emailed to all 1544 members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in 2019, and then resent in 2022 to 1575 members with additional questions regarding the pandemic. Questions assessed practice type, TC characteristics, training, experience, beliefs about personal and hospital preparedness, likelihood of MCI scenarios, interventions desired from membership organizations, and pandemic experiences. Results: The response rate was 16.7% in 2019 and 12% in 2022. In 2022, surgeons felt better prepared than their hospitals for pandemic care, mass shootings, and active shooters, but remained feeling less well prepared for cyberattack and hazardous material events, compared with 2019. Only 35% of the respondents had unintentional MCI response experience in 2019 or 2022, and even fewer had experience with intentional MCI. 78% had completed a Stop the Bleed (STB) course and 63% own an STB kit. 57% had engaged in family preparedness activities; less than 40% had a family action plan if they could not come home during an MCI. 100% of the respondents witnessed pandemic-related adverse events, including colleague and coworker illness, patient surges, and resource limitations, and 17% faced colleague or coworker death. Conclusions: Trauma surgeons thought that they became better at pandemic care and rated themselves as better prepared than their hospitals for MCI care, which is an opportunity for them to take greater leadership roles. Opportunities remain to improve surgeons' family and personal MCI preparedness. Surgeons' most desired professional organization interventions include advocacy, national standards for TC preparedness, and online training. Level of evidence: VII, survey of expert opinion.

Geospatial Assessment to Improve Time to Treatment (GAITT).

INTRODUCTION: Geographic information systems (GIS) can optimize trauma systems by identifying ways to reduce time to treatment. Using GIS, this study analyzed a system in Maryland served by Johns Hopkins Suburban Hospital and the University of Maryland Capital Region Medical Center. It was hypothesized that including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in the Maryland trauma system in an access simulation would provide increased timely access for a portion of the local population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using ArcGIS Online, catchment areas with and without WRNMMC were built. Catchment areas captured Johns Hopkins Suburban Hospital, University of Maryland Capital Region Medical Center, and WRNMMC at 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, 30-, 45-, and 60-min. Various time conditions were simulated (12 am, 8 am, 12 pm, and 5 pm) on a weekday and weekend day. Data was enriched with 19 variables addressing population size, socioeconomic status, and diversity. RESULTS: All catchment areas benefited on at least one time-day simulation, but the largest increases in mean population coverage were in the 0-5 (10.5%), 5-10 (12.3%), and 10-15 min (5.7%) catchment areas. These areas benefited regardless of time-day simulation. The lowest increase in mean population coverage was seen in the 20-25-min catchment area (0.1%). Subgroup analysis revealed that all socioeconomic status and diversity groups gained coverage. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that incorporating WRNMMC into the Maryland trauma system might yield increased population coverage for timely trauma access. If incorporated, WRNMMC may provide nonstop or flexible coverage, possibly in different traffic scenarios or while civilian centers are on diversion status.

Brief Comparative Analysis of Trauma Care Specialties in Europe and the United States.

Understanding the variation in training and nuances of trauma provider practice between the countries in Europe and the United States is a daunting task. This article briefly reviews the key specialties of trauma care in Europe including emergency medical services (EMS), emergency medicine, anesthesia, trauma surgery, and critical care. The authors hope to inform U.S. military clinicians and medical planners of the major differences in emergency and trauma care that exist across Europe. Emergency medicine exists as both a primary specialty and a subspecialty across Europe, with varying stages of development as a specialty in each country. There is heavy physician involvement in EMS in much of Europe, with anesthesiologists having additional EMS training typically providing prehospital critical care. Because of the historical predominance of blunt trauma in Europe, in many countries, trauma surgery is a subspecialty with initial orthopedic surgery training versus general surgery. Intensive care medicine has various training pathways across Europe, but there have been great advances in standardizing competency requirements across the European Union. Finally, the authors suggest some strategies to mitigate the potential negative consequences of joint medical teams and how to leverage some key differences to advance life-saving medical interoperability across the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the trauma systems and informatics panel Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on the trauma care system recommended establishing a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded a study to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the trauma and burn care continuum. Panels were created to conduct a gap analysis and identify high-priority research questions. The National Trauma Research Action Plan panel reported here addressed trauma systems and informatics. METHODS: Experts were recruited to identify current gaps in trauma systems research, generate research questions, and establish the priorities using an iterative Delphi survey approach from November 2019 through August 2020. Panelists were identified to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability, including military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: patient/population, intervention, compare/control, and outcome. In subsequent surveys, panelists prioritized each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized as low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-seven subject matter experts generated 570 research questions, of which 427 (75%) achieved the consensus threshold. Of the consensus reaching questions, 209 (49%) were rated high priority, 213 (50%) medium priority, and 5 (1%) low priority. Gaps in understanding the broad array of interventions were identified, including those related to health care infrastructure, technology products, education/training, resuscitation, and operative intervention. The prehospital phase of care was highlighted as an area needing focused research. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of trauma systems and informatics research identified high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators and funding agencies in setting research priorities to continue to work toward Zero Preventable Deaths after trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Evidence-based Surgical Competency Outcomes from the Clinical Readiness Program.

OBJECTIVES: 1) Evaluate the value and strength of a competency framework for identifying and measuring performance requirements for expeditionary surgeons; 2) Verify psychometric integrity of assessment instrumentation for measuring domain knowledge and skills; 3) Identify gaps in knowledge and skills capabilities using assessment strategies; 4) Examine shared variance between knowledge and skills outcomes, and the volume and diversity of routine surgical practice. BACKGROUND: Expeditionary military surgeons provide care for patients with injuries that extend beyond the care requirements of their routine surgical practice. The readiness of these surgeons to independently provide accurate care in expeditionary contexts is important for casualty care in military and civilian situations. Identifying and closing performance gap areas are essential for assuring readiness. METHODS: We implemented evidence-based processes for identifying and measuring the essential performance competencies for expeditionary surgeons. All assessment instrumentation was rigorously examined for psychometric integrity. Performance outcomes were directly measured for expeditionary surgical knowledge and skills and gap areas were identified. Knowledge and skills assessment outcomes were compared, and also compared to the volume and diversity of routine surgical practice to determine shared variance. RESULTS: Outcomes confirmed the integrity of assessment instrumentation and identified significant performance gaps for knowledge and skills in the domain. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of domain competencies and performance benchmarks, combined with best-practices in assessment instrumentation, provided a rigorous and defensible framework for quantifying domain competencies. By identifying and implementing strategies for closing performance gap areas, we provide a positive process for assuring surgical competency and clinical readiness.

Prehospital Trauma Airway Management: An NAEMSP Position Statement and Resource Document.

Definitive management of trauma is not possible in the out-of-hospital environment. Rapid treatment and transport of trauma casualties to a trauma center are vital to improve survival and outcomes. Prioritization and management of airway, oxygenation, ventilation, protection from gross aspiration, and physiologic optimization must be balanced against timely patient delivery to definitive care. The optimal prehospital airway management strategy for trauma has not been clearly defined; the best choice should be patient-specific. NAEMSP recommends:The approach to airway management and the choice of airway interventions in a trauma patient requires an iterative, individualized assessment that considers patient, clinician, and environmental factors.Optimal trauma airway management should focus on meeting the goals of adequate oxygenation and ventilation rather than on specific interventions. Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians should perform frequent reassessments to determine if there is a need to escalate from basic to advanced airway interventions.Management of immediately life-threatening injuries should take priority over advanced airway insertion.Drug-assisted airway management should be considered within a comprehensive algorithm incorporating failed airway options and balanced management of pain, agitation, and delirium.EMS medical directors must be highly engaged in assuring clinician competence in trauma airway assessment, management, and interventions.

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.

When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going: Improving the Disaster Preparedness of Health Care Providers: A Single Center's 4-Year Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Operation based exercises represent simulation activities, which are of great importance for emergency preparedness, as they simulate real experiences in a guided manner. Whereas their primary purpose is to address the organizational emergency preparedness, little is known about the personal benefits of involved participants and whether these positive changes endure over time. METHODS: Immediate and medium term assessment of the effectiveness on individual preparedness and benefits of participants, based on self-perception, after participating in a set of 4 interdisciplinary field exercises organized as part of the MSc in Global Health-Disaster Medicine of the Medical School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. The field exercises were carried out yearly, from 2016 to 2019. Data were collected via questionnaires pre- and post-exercise (1 week and 10 months after participation). The sample size was 228 trainees, with a response rate of 88%. RESULTS: The majority (95%) stated that Mass Casualty Incident (MCI) exercises are appropriate for disaster management training in terms of comprehending theory, and for team-building training. In the case of a real MCI, 22% of the participants declared themselves to be ready to respond prior to MCI exercises. Upon completion, the overall perception of readiness among the participants increased to 77%. Trainee feedback indicated enhancement of both technical and non-technical skills (87%), which were persistent over time, and revealed a high level of satisfaction with the training. CONCLUSION: This study shows a positive immediate and medium-term impact of operation-based exercises on technical, non-technical skills, and self-perception of participants.

Analysis of Surgical Volume in Military Medical Treatment Facilities and Clinical Combat Readiness of US Military Surgeons.

Importance: Low surgical volume in the US Military Health System (MHS) has been identified as a challenge to military surgeon readiness. The Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, in partnership with the American College of Surgeons, developed the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) Clinical Readiness Program that includes a tool for quantifying the clinical readiness value of surgeon workload, known as the KSA metric. Objective: To describe changes in US military general surgeon procedural volume and readiness using the KSA metric. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed general surgery workload performed across the MHS, including military and civilian facilities, between fiscal year 2015 and 2019 and the calculated KSA metric value. The surgeon-level readiness among military general surgeons was calculated based on the KSA metric readiness threshold. Data were obtained from TRICARE, the US Department of Defense health insurance product. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were general surgery procedural volumes and the KSA metric point value of those procedures across the MHS as well as the number of military general surgeons meeting the KSA metric readiness threshold. Aggregate facility and regional market-level claims data were used to calculate the procedural volumes and KSA metric readiness value of those procedures. Annual adjusted KSA metric points earned were used to determine the number of individual US military general surgeons meeting the readiness threshold. Results: The number of general surgery procedures generating KSAs in military hospitals decreased 25.6%, from 128 377 in 2015 to 95 461 in 2019, with a 19.1% decrease in the number of general surgeon KSA points (from 7 155 563 to 5 790 001). From 2015 to 2019, there was a 3.2% increase in both the number of procedures (from 419 980 to 433 495) and KSA points (from 21 071 033 to 21 748 984) in civilian care settings. The proportion of military general surgeons meeting the KSA metric readiness threshold decreased from 16.7% (n = 97) in 2015 to 10.1% (n = 68) in 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: This study noted that the number of KSA metric points and procedural volume in military hospitals has been decreasing since 2015, whereas both measures have increased in civilian facilities. The findings suggest that loss of surgical workload has resulted in further decreases in military surgeon readiness and may require substantial changes in patient care flow in the MHS to reverse the change.

There Is No Role for Damage Control Orthopedics Within the Golden Hour.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma systems within the United States have adapted the "golden hour" principle to guide prehospital planning with the goal to deliver the injured to the trauma facility in under 60 minutes. In an effort to reduce preventable prehospital death, in 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates mandated that prehospital transport of injured combat casualties must be less than 60 minutes. The U.S. Military has implemented a 60-minute timeline for the transport of battlefield causalities to medical teams to include Forward Surgical Teams and Forward Resuscitative Surgical Teams. The inclusion of orthopedic surgeons on Forward Surgical Teams has been extrapolated from the concept of damage control orthopedics (DCO). However, it is not clear if orthopedic surgeons have yielded a demonstrable benefit in morbidity or mortality reduction. The purpose of this article is to investigate the function of orthopedic surgeons during the military "golden hour." MATERIALS AND METHODS: The English literature was reviewed for evidence supporting the use of orthopedic surgeons within the golden hour. Literature was reviewed in light of the 2009 golden hour mandate by Secretary Gates as well as those papers which highlighted the utility of DCO within the golden hour. RESULTS: Evidence for orthopedic surgery within the "golden hour" or in the current conflicts when the United States enjoys air superiority was not identified. CONCLUSIONS: Within the military context, DCO, specifically pertaining to fracture fixation, should not be considered an element of golden hour planning and thus orthopedic surgeons are best utilized at more centralized Role 3 facility locations. The focus within the first hour after injury on the battlefield should be maintained on rapid and effective prehospital care combined with timely evacuation, as these are the most critical factors to reducing mortality.

Ultramobile Surgical Set for Austere Damage Control Surgery.

The authors describe an equipment list for an ultramobile, surgeon-carried equipment set that is specifically designed for missions that require the extremes of constraints on personnel and resources conducted outside the ring of golden hour access to damage control surgery (DCS) capabilities.

A Novel Paradigm for Surgical Skills Training and Assessment of Competency.

Importance: Sustainment of comprehensive procedural skills in trauma surgery is a particular problem for surgeons in rural, global, and combat settings. Trauma care often requires open surgical procedures for low-frequency/high-risk injuries at a time when open surgical experience is declining in general and trauma surgery training. Objective: To determine whether general surgeons participating in a 2-day standardized trauma skills course demonstrate measurable improvement in accuracy and independent performance of specific trauma skills. Design, Setting, and Participants: General surgeons in active surgical practice were enrolled from a simulation center with anatomic laboratory from October 2019 to October 2020. Differences in pretraining/training and posttraining performance outcomes were examined using (1) pretraining/posttraining surveys, (2) pretraining/posttraining knowledge assessment, and (3) training/posttraining faculty assessment. Analysis took place in November 2020. Interventions: A 2-day standardized, immersive, cadaver-based skills course, developed with best practices in instructional design, that teaches and assesses 24 trauma surgical procedures was used. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trauma surgery capability, as measured by confidence, knowledge, abilities, and independent performance of specific trauma surgical procedures; 3-month posttraining skill transfer. Results: The study cohort included 65 active-duty general surgeons, of which 16 (25%) were women and 49 (75%) were men. The mean (SD) age was 38.5 (4.2) years. Before and during training, 1 of 65 participants (1%) were able to accurately perform all 24 procedures without guidance. After course training, 64 participants (99%) met the benchmark performance requirements for the 24 trauma procedures, and 51 (78%) were able to perform them without guidance. Procedural confidence and knowledge increased significantly from before to after the course. At 3 months after training, 37 participants (56%) reported skill transfer to trauma or other procedures. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, direct measurement of procedural performance following standardized training demonstrated significant improvement in skill performance in a broad array of trauma procedures. This model may be useful for assessment of procedural competence in other specialties.

COVID-19: Opportunity to Re-Imagine Our Response to a National Medical Crisis.

The US is facing the most significant health challenge since the 1918-1919 flu pandemic. A response commensurate with this challenge requires engaged leadership and organization across private and public sectors that span federal agencies, public and private healthcare systems, professional organizations, and industry. In the trauma and emergency care communities, we have long discussed the tension between competition in healthcare and the need for regional cooperation to respond to large-scale disasters. The response to COVID-19 has required unprecedented coordination of private and public sector entities. Given the competitive nature of the US health system, these sectors do not regularly work together despite the requirement to do so during a national emergency. This crisis has exposed how structural aspects of the present healthcare system have limited our ability to rapidly transition to a whole-nation response during a national crisis. We propose a renewed focus on the intersection of the healthcare system and national security, with the express goal of creating a public-private partnership focused on leveraging our healthcare infrastructure to support the national security interests of the US.