Page 38 - JSOM Summer 2022

4. Suturing (conducted on cadavers by a general surgeon) The medical school faculty reported that the collaboration
5. Knee aspiration module (conducted by sports medicine with the military was mutually beneficial and that, particu-
physicians using simulators) larly for the medical school, it was an advantageous oppor-
6. Nasogastric tube insertion (conducted by medical students tunity for the medical school to use their substantial training
and our simulation center staff) resources (Figure 4).
7. Tropical disease module (conducted by a faculty
micro biologist). FIGURE 4 Benefits to the faculty.
8. Shoulder injection (conducted by sports medicine physi-
cians using simulators)
9. Gaining admission to an osteopathic medical school (con-
ducted by medical school faculty)
10. Episiotomy repair

The least popular training module was episiotomy, which was
conducted by an outside physician but with a poor training
model as reported by the attendees.

In the comment section of this survey, many attendees asked
for more time at many of the stations. Also mentioned were
recommendations for future training including physical ther-
apy topics, updates on pharmacology, and the best technique Conclusion
for suturing in a chest tube.
Collaboration on annual training between a medical school
A posttraining survey was conducted of the medical school and a National Guard Special Forces Group can be accom-
faculty. The faculty thought that both the medical school and plished with great benefit to both parties. Medical school fac-
the military benefited from the collaborative training, and 10 ulty and students are enthusiastic about contributing to the
(83%) of 12 reported volunteering to serve as faculty for the training of the military Servicemembers, and medical schools
training (Figure 2). may have some underused resources. The military Service-
members were found to be very appreciative of the training
provided. Herein we provide a blueprint for the steps required
FIGURE 2 Most common reasons for faculty participation.
in creating this collaboration. One of the many keys to the
success of this training activity was having a former military
Servicemember on the faculty of the medical school who could
advocate for the training project. We estimated that the cost to
the medical school would be quite low, and our dean agreed
to have the medical school cover all costs. No complex mem-
oranda were required. Based on our experience, we believe
that Special Forces Groups should consider contacting local
medical schools to investigate the possibility of collaborating
on annual training.
Many faculty members thought that no changes were required
in the training, but those who thought that some changes were
needed particularly thought that a better understanding of the
participants existing skills was necessary, as well as making
some of the modules more challenging (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3 Changes recommended by the faculty.

36 | JSOM Volume 22, Edition 2 / Summer 2022