World Journal of Surgery

, 34:164 | Cite as

Advanced Trauma Operative Management Course: Participant Survey

  • Lenworth JacobsEmail author
  • Karyl Burns
  • Stephen Luk
  • Stephanie Hull



The Advanced Trauma Operative Management (ATOM) course uses standardized porcine simulation to teach the repair of penetrating trauma. It is offered in 26 sites in the United States, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, and Japan. The purpose of the present study was to query ATOM participants regarding their perceptions of the value and influence of the ATOM course on knowledge, confidence, and skill to repair penetrating injuries.


An anonymous, voluntary survey was posted on the Internet at E-mail notification was sent to all 1,001 ATOM participants through May 2008. Items requested agreement/disagreement on a 5-point Likert scale and space for comments. Agreement indicated positive perceptions of ATOM.


A total of 962 surgeons received the request to complete the survey; 444 ATOM participants from 36 states and 17 countries participated, for a response rate of 46%. Range of agreement with all of the items was 75.4–99.0%. Results include the following: 78.9% (95% CI, 74.7–82.6%) can identify injuries more quickly; 80.7% (95% CI, 76.6–84.3%) have a more organized operative approach; 81.1% (95% CI, 77.0–84.6%) can control bleeding more quickly; 86.1% (95% CI, 82.4–89.2%) can control injuries more effectively; 86.4% (95% CI, 82.7–89.4%) are more competent trauma surgeons; 87.0% are more confident (95% CI, 83.4–89.9%), and 89.2% are more knowledgeable (95% CI, 85.8–91.8%) about repairing penetrating injuries; 99% (95% CI, 97.4–99.7%) said ATOM is worthwhile. Overall, 87.4% of the comments were positive.


Participants worldwide perceive that ATOM is worthwhile and helps surgeons improve knowledge, confidence, and skill in repairing penetrating injuries.


Surgical Resident Trauma Surgeon Negative Comment Trauma Case Surgical Education 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank Gloria Opirhory, PhD, Vijay Jayaraman, MD, and Jack Alberti, MS, for their assistance with the survey.


  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006) WISQARS fatal injuries and nonfatal injuries: reports (2006). Available at: Accessed 29 Apr 2009
  2. 2.
    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (2008) Frequently asked questions about the ACGME common duty hour standards. Available at: http:/www.acgme/acWebsite/dutyHours/dh_faqs.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2009
  3. 3.
    Jacobs LM, Burns KJ, Kaban JM et al (2003) Development and evaluation of the Advanced Trauma Operative Management course. J Trauma 55:471–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs LM, Burns KJ, Luk S et al (2004) Implementation of the Advanced Trauma Operative Management course. PanAm J Trauma 11:21–27Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobs LM, Burns KJ, Luk SS (2006) Advanced Trauma Operative Management Course: site and instructor selection and evaluation. J Am Coll Surg 203:772–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobs LM, Burns KJ, Luk SS et al (2005) Follow-up survey of participants attending the Advanced Trauma Operative Management (ATOM) course. J Trauma 58:1140–1143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    QuickCalcs. Confidence intervals. Available at: Accessed 21 Apr 2009

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lenworth Jacobs
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karyl Burns
    • 1
  • Stephen Luk
    • 1
  • Stephanie Hull
    • 1
  1. 1.Trauma Program, Hartford HospitalHartfordUSA

Personalised recommendations