Beyond Trauma: High-Volume Critical Care Medicine in a Military Medical Center-Based Military-Civilian Partnership.

INTRODUCTION: Critical Care Internal Medicine (CCIM) is vital to the U.S. Military as evidenced by the role CCIM played in the COVID-19 pandemic response and wartime operations. Although the proficiency needs of military surgeons have been well studied, this has not been the case for CCIM. The objective of this study was to compare the patient volume and acuity of military CCIM physicians working solely at Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) with those at MTFs also working part-time in a military-civilian partnership (MCP) at the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada (UMC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed FY2019 critical care coding data from the Military Health System and UMC comparing the number of critical care encounters, the number of high-acuity critical care encounters, and the Abilities/Activity component of the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities/Clinical Activity (KSA) score. This analysis was restricted to critical care encounters defined by Current Procedural Terminology codes for critical care (99291 and 99292). A critical care encounter was considered high acuity if the patient had ICD-10 codes for shock, respiratory failure, or cardiac arrest or had at least three codes for critical care in the same episode. RESULTS: The five AF CCIM physicians in the MCP group performed 2,019 critical care encounters in 206 days, with 63.1% (1,273) being defined as high acuity. The total number of MTF critical care encounters was 16,855 across all providers and services, with 28.9% (4,864) of encounters defined as high acuity. When limited to CCIM encounters, MTFs had 6,785 critical care encounters, with 32.0% being high acuity (2,171). Thus, the five AF CCIM physicians, while working 206 days at the UMC, equated to 12.0% (2,019/16,855) of the total critical care MTF encounters, 27.2% (1,273/4,684) of the total high-acuity MTF critical care encounters, and 29.8% (2,019/6,785) of the MTF CCIM encounters, with 58.6% (1,273/2,171) of the MTF CCIM high-acuity encounters.The USAF CCIM physicians in the MCP group performed 454,395 KSAs in 206 days, with a KSA density per day of 2,206. In the MTF group, CCIM providers generated 2,344,791 total KSAs over 10,287 days, with a KSA density per day of 227.9. Thus, the five CCIM physicians at the UMC accounted for 19.38% of the MTF CCIM KSAs, with a KSA density over 10 times higher (2,206 vs. 227.9). CONCLUSIONS: The volume and acuity of critical care at MTFs may be insufficient to maintain CCIM proficiency under the current system. Military-civilian partnerships are invaluable in maintaining clinical proficiency for military CCIM physicians and can be done on a part-time basis while maintaining beneficiary care at an MTF. Future CCIM expeditionary success is contingent on CCIM physicians and team members having the required CCIM exposure to grow and maintain clinical proficiency.Limitations of this study include the absence of off-duty employment (moonlighting) data and difficulty filtering military data down to just CCIM physicians, which likely caused the MTF CCIM data to be overestimated.

Data-driven readiness: A preliminary report on cataloging best practices in military civilian partnerships.

BACKGROUND: Between conflicts, many of the combat casualty care lessons learned are lost as the nation shifts priorities and providers leave the military. Solutions are needed to bridge the knowledge gap created by interwar periods. One of the foremost solutions is partnerships between civilian trauma centers and the military health system. Over the past two decades, a myriad of military-civilian partnerships (MCPs), which vary in their composition, duration, and focus, was created. The objective of this report is to describe the initial attempt of the Department of Defense to catalog existing MCPs to inform both civilian and military stakeholders. This initial catalog is intended as a reference to aid in future MCP development and facilitate the synchronization of efforts to improve trauma care delivery and readiness. METHODS: Using methodology from the Institute of Defense Analysis, the total number of eligible trauma centers in the United States was determined. The Institute of Defense Analysis determined eligibility-based American College of Surgeons Trauma Center verification or state trauma center designation. Each military service provided their list of MCPs, which were categorized. Military-civilian partnerships were cataloged by various characteristics and program components. Key variables include number and type of personnel trained, duration of training, and focus, for example, team versus individual focused and training versus maintaining proficiency focused. RESULTS: A total of 1,139 hospitals in the United States are potentially eligible for MCPs. There are at least 87 unique partnerships; the majority are part-time sustainment MCPs. The Air Force has the largest number of providers in MCPs. There are many challenges to maintain accurate and up to date data on MCPs. CONCLUSION: With the collated information, the Defense Health Agency, military services, special operations community, and civilian partners will be better empowered to optimize the readiness value of their programs and better prepare our military medical providers for the nation's and military's future needs.

A Methodology for Estimating the Cost of Educating Military Physicians at the Uniformed Services University.

INTRODUCTION: The Department of Defense (DoD) operates a large, multi-channeled physician accession pipeline to maintain a professional workforce of over 10,000 active duty physicians. The Uniformed Services University (USU) operates the nation's only federal medical school providing trained doctors to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Public Health Service. Although the school serves an essential purpose, policymakers question the cost of operating the University's medical school. One challenge is to develop reproducible and transparent costing methods that can be used to evaluate the University's value and efficiency. METHODS: This work proposes a replicable methodology for estimating the cost per student-year at USU. Using detailed data from USU encompassing facility use, budgeting and expenditures, and faculty and student rosters, we break out and attribute costs to the University's component schools. Using faculty and staff time-use surveys, we further break out education-related personnel costs from other University activities such as research and service. We can then calculate the School of Medicine's annual cost to educate a uniformed physician. RESULTS: In Fiscal Year 2017, it cost the DoD approximately $253,000 per year (more than $1 million dollars total over a 4-year curriculum) to directly educate a physician though the USU School of Medicine. Data from the following Fiscal Year show that education costs grew a modest 2.1% per student-year. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides a foundational framework and approach to estimate the costs of accessioning a physician at USU. This methodology can be replicated for subsequent value analyses of physician accession and retention as budgetary pressures change to match the DoD operating environment. Uniformed Services University's costs should be periodically reassessed against those of alternative accession sources.