Introduction
Naval operations rely on Corpsmen to provide combat casualty and primary care services to the fleet, including the Fleet Marine Force. The United States faces new conflict challenges with near-peer adversaries in the modern geo-political climate. Corpsmen will likely require new skills to care for patients in anti-access/area-denial regions and transport patients across expansive maritime environments. To help them adapt to these new challenges, we evaluated the need for Corpsmen curriculum reform at the III Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). This model begins with a general needs assessment to target gaps between the current and ideal approaches identified by the stakeholders.
Materials and Methods
We identified 4 primary stakeholders within the Fleet Marine Force community: Marine Commanders (Society), Marines receiving treatment (Patients), Corpsmen providing care (Health Care Workers), and medical providers supervising Corpsmen (Medical Educators). We invited all ranks from III MEF to participate. The participants were interviewed in a mixture of focus groups and individual interviews in conversational and open-ended discussions. Transcripts of these discussions were analyzed and inductively coded using principles of grounded theory to identify prevailing themes that connected across interviews. The study was exempted by the Institutional Review Board at Naval Medical Center San Diego and Headquarters Marine Corps.
Results
The study involved 47 participants, including all stakeholders in III MEF and ranks from E1 through general officers. Through interviews and focus groups, 4 key themes emerged regarding Corpsmen’s education: “Training,” “Tasking,” “Performance,” and “Impact”. “Training” discussions covered formal education, including gaps in basic training and the applicability of skills in civilian settings. “Tasking” examined daily responsibilities and equipment needs, such as teaching roles and first-responder care. “Performance” highlighted the quality of care and challenges in maintaining skills amid non-clinical tasks. Lastly, “Impact” assessed Corpsmen’s influence on mission success and job satisfaction, revealing positive and negative perceptions among participants regarding their role and career prospects.
Conclusion
The discussion emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in developing a Corpsmen-based curriculum, focusing on themes such as Training, Performance, and Impact. Tasking highlights critical areas for curriculum development, especially in educating Corpsmen as Educators, Leaders, and First-responder Caregivers. Gaps in training were identified, particularly in Non-trauma and First-responder Care, impacting Corpsmen’s ability to handle diseases and injuries independently. Drawing parallels with Community Health Worker and Physician Extender (PE) education paradigms, we suggest adapting existing models to meet Corpsmen’s needs. The discussion also delves into the history of employing PEs and developing training programs within the Naval Service. We propose a combination of Community Health Worker and PE-based education to enhance Corpsmen’s competency and job satisfaction while facilitating their transition to civilian health care. Standardized curricula and training programs could improve skill transferability and readiness for Corpsmen in both military and civilian settings.
