ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2024
Preparing the future combat surgeon: a survey of the military general surgery trainee GME experience.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractIntroduction: Graduate medical education (GME) lacks a standardized military training program for general surgery residents, and concern exists that they may not be prepared to serve as combat surgeons on training completion. The purpose of this study was to assess military surgery trainee satisfaction with their programs. Our hypothesis was that military residents were not completely confident to care for combat casualties on completion of current GME training. Methods: We surveyed US Army, Navy, and Air Force general surgery residents and fellows between November 2023 and March 2024 to assess their confidence in managing combat injuries. Queried residents further rate their overall satisfaction with surgical training, perceived level of deployment preparedness and curriculum elements which they thought would be most beneficial to their training. Results: The survey yielded an overall 43% response rate (132/305) with a response rate of 42% (61/147) from the Army, 56% (44/79) from the Navy, and 34% (27/79) from the Air Force. Most trainees were trained in military medical treatment facility residency programs (n=91, 68.9%) and nearly half of respondents (n=64, 49%) were senior trainees (postgraduate year (PGY)4, PGY5, and fellows). Among all trainees, only two-thirds (n=88, 67%,) thought they were adequately prepared to deploy and operate on military combat casualties by the end of residency but 114 (86%) were satisfied with the training they received during general surgery residency in adult trauma, 103 (78%) in critical care, and 112 (85%) in acute care surgery. However, more than half were unsatisfied with the training they received in obstetric/gynecologic and urologic emergencies (n=72, 55%; and n=67, 51%, respectively). Conclusion: Although the majority of military surgical residents surveyed are satisfied with their training in adult trauma, critical care, and emergency general surgery, a large number of trainees thought they would not be ready to deploy and manage combat casualties. Level of evidence: Prognostic and epidemiological, Level IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.