Dataset Information

COVER: A Curriculum in the Management of Soft Tissue Injury and Infection for Junior Surgery Residents.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While wound management is a common task for practicing surgeons, there is a paucity of dedicated education on soft tissue management during residency training.

Objective

The COVER (Causes of soft tissue injury, Obstacles to closure, Vacuums and stitches, Epithelialization, Rationale for wound care) curriculum was developed to engage junior surgery residents in the management of soft tissue injury and infection.

Methods

Junior surgery residents participated in the COVER lab during academic years 2018-2020. Residents applied appropriate surgical management and wound care to cadaveric models of soft tissue injury and infection. Assessments included a pre-/post-curriculum and pre-/post-lab multiple choice questionnaire and survey.

Results

All eligible residents (n = 45, 27) participated in the COVER lab for both academic years. Postgraduate year (PGY)-1s, PGY-2s, and PGY-3s showed improvement in wound management knowledge with an average increase in score of 17%, 8%, and 18%, respectively. They also showed a change in their self-reported perceived ability to achieve primary soft tissue closure with confidence levels 22%, 20%, and 16%, respectively. This was again seen in perceived ability to manage soft tissue injuries and infections (28%, 28%, and 23%, respectively). There was a significant increase in performing new wound management skills (PGY-1 mean 51.3%, PGY-2 33.5%, PGY-3 20%; ANOVA, P = .0001).

Conclusions

The COVER curriculum provides a systematic approach to soft tissue injury and infection. Residents showed a significant increase in both soft tissue knowledge as well as confidence in ability to perform wound management.

SUBMITTER: Onufer EJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7901621 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED).DesignRandomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence.SettingA single ED in England.Participants372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (16 years and older) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups.InterventionsPatients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades).Main outcome measuresEconomic cost-minimisation evaluation from a funder perspective of the National Health Service, England incorporating analysis of the direct, indirect and tangible costs of care in primary and secondary settings.ResultsFrom a funder perspective in primary and secondary care, ESPs and ENPs are at best equivalent and could not cost less than routine care. Uncertainty in cost arises from ESPs and ENPs incurring greater indirect costs, such as those associated with follow-up appointments and subsequent primary care visits. Comparison from a funder perspective in secondary care, that is, considering those costs incurred in secondary care alone, demonstrates that ENPs are equivalent in cost to routine care, while ESPs are either equivalent or possibly cheaper than routine care.ConclusionsThese results question the notion that training the healthcare workforce to undertake extensions of their role is generally cost effective. While the randomised trial indicated that the three professional groups have equivalent clinical outcomes, this economic analysis suggests that substitution of routine care with a predominantly ESP or ENP workforce could prove more expensive. Further research is required to understand the underlying reasons for this. The trial has been registered with ISRCTN-ISRCTN 70891354.