Medic Training at Military-Civilian Partnerships-A Narrative Review

Military-Civilian Partnerships (MCP) were developed to mitigate degradation of combat medical readiness during peacetime. Although these programs have historically focused on sustaining surgical readiness and training military physicians, MCP increasingly augment training for Army Combat Medics, Navy Hospital Corpsmen, Air Force Aerospace Service Specialist, and other non-physician military medical personnel. The effectiveness, scalability, and alignment of MCP along with evolving operational requirements remain incompletely defined. We performed a review of available literature to assess and characterize the current state of medic training at MCP sites.

A narrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and other grey literature (2000-2025). Studies describing MCP curricula, clinical exposure, and/or educational outcomes specific to combat medics were included. Data were qualitatively synthesized to characterize MCP models, training environments, assessment strategies, and reported outcomes. IRB review was not required.

Nine studies met inclusion criteria. Eight publications detail MCP curricula and program sites. One publication outlining expert opinions, strategic prioritization, and consensus doctrine for MCP development was included. Across studies, MCP participation was associated with improved self-reported confidence; however, objective knowledge and skills gains were modest, inconsistently assessed, or absent. Training experiences were frequently observational, though level of clinical involvement was inconsistently reported. Medic-specific curricula and standardized assessment benchmarks were rarely described. Detailed programs were disproportionately concentrated at Level I trauma centers.

Existing MCP provide perceived educational benefit to combat medics but incompletely address medic-specific readiness and scalability. Broad expansion of the MCP model, coupled with standardized curricula, interoperable training and educational standards for medics, and objective assessment tools may better optimize intended benefits. Training should align with future operational demands, which are constantly evolving. Iterative and agile curricula will benefit preparation and wartime needs. Diverse partnership offers profound opportunity to enhance both military and civilian contributions to the national trauma system.