Background Uncontrolled hemorrhage remains the leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Hemostatic agents have increased in use and have been shown to improve survival. Combat Gauze (CG) is the most-used hemostatic gauze recommended by the Committee of Tactical Combat Casualty Care. Hemoblast Bellows (HB), a product FDA-approved for intraoperative hemorrhage, contains thrombin which differentiates it from CG and other kaolin-based hemostatic agents and has not been evaluated in the pre-hospital setting. This study aimed to compare HB to CG, in a standard swine arterial hemorrhage model. Methods Dilutional coagulopathy and hypothermia were induced in anesthetized Yorkshire-cross swine. The femoral artery was isolated and a 6 mm femoral arteriotomy was made. After a 30 s free bleed, randomly assigned hemostatic agent(s) from one of the three treatment groups: HB only, CG only, and HB + CG were applied and direct pressure was held for 3 min. At 30 min, the ipsilateral lower extremity was mobilized with a series of hip movements. Primary endpoints included blood loss, rebleeding, thromboelastogram (TEG) values, SPOT GRADE(TM) values, and mean arterial pressure (MAPs), which were monitored during the 150-min observation period. Results There were no significant differences between the treatment groups for blood loss, rebleeding, lactate, TEG values, SPOT GRADE, or MAPs for all time points examined. Conclusions We found no significant differences between the treatment groups for any of the included data points. These results suggest that arterial hemorrhage control with HB alone and HB + CG is not significantly different from hemorrhage control with CG only. These findings should not deter us from a continued investigation of hemostatic agents but should stimulate our search for superior hemorrhage control agents and novel delivery mechanisms. Continued innovation with such products may overcome the product limitations that we observed during testing and may prove to be a more relevant product for the point-of-injury.

Purpose Simulation is an instructional modality that offers opportunities for assessment across many domains. The American College of Surgeons created the Accredited Education Institutes (AEIs) to build a community of high-quality simulation centers focused around improving surgical education and training. The goals of this project were to identify assessment methods used by AEIs, discuss how these methods align with established assessment frameworks, identify best practices, and provide guidance on best practice implementation. Methods The authors analyzed responses regarding learner assessment, faculty assessment, and continuous program improvement from AEI accreditations surveys using deductive qualitative analysis. Results Data from ninety-six centers were reviewed. Codes for each category were organized into formal and informal themes. For learner assessment, examinations and checklists identified as the most common types of formal assessment used and oral feedback as the most common type of informal assessment. For faculty assessment, written evaluations were the most common formal type and debriefs were the most common informal type. For continuous program improvement, written evaluations were the most common formal type and oral feedback was the most frequent informal type. Discussion The goal of assessment should be to encourage learning through feedback and to ensure the attainment of educational competencies. The data revealed a variety of assessment modalities used to accomplish this goal with AEIs frequently utilizing some of the most reliable forms of assessment. We discuss how these forms of assessment can be integrated with best practices to develop assessment portfolios for learners and faculty, performance improvement reports for faculty, and assessments of clinical impact. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44186-023-00132-6.