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

Abstract

ABSTRACT 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.