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.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the injury prevention research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In its 2016 report on trauma care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on injury prevention. METHODS: Experts in injury prevention research were recruited to identify current gaps in injury prevention research, generate research questions and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach from December 2019 through September 2020. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with both military and civilian representatives. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to use a Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subject matter experts generated 394 questions in 12 topic areas. By round 3 of the Delphi, 367 (93.1%) questions reached consensus, of which 169 (46.1%) were determined to be high priority, 196 (53.4%) medium priority, and 2 (0.5%) low priority. Among the 169 high priority questions, suicide (29.6%), firearm violence (20.1%), and violence prevention (18.3%) were the most prevalent topic areas. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of injury prevention research identified 169 high priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future injury prevention research. Funding agencies and researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therepeutic/Care Management; Level IV.