EGS program and verification consulting.

Verification is a documentation problem before it is a clinical one

Programs rarely fail an ACS Emergency General Surgery Verification review because the surgery is bad. They struggle because the structure that proves the surgery is good — the call schedule, the transfer pathway, the PI loop and the data behind it — was never written down in the form a review team needs to see.

That work is entirely doable in advance, and it is far cheaper to do in advance. The programs that have a comfortable site visit are the ones that built their performance-improvement infrastructure and their data capture first, and then went looking for the standards, rather than the other way around.

What the engagement covers

• Gap analysis of your program against the standards, in writing
• Performance-improvement infrastructure: case identification, review cadence, loop closure, and the documentation trail
• Data capture — what to collect, who collects it, and how it becomes evidence
• Call structure and transfer pathway review
• Readiness assessment ahead of the site visit, and what to expect on the day

The boundary, stated plainly

This is program-level work only. No clinical care, no chart review, no involvement in individual patient management. The engagement is about how your program is organised, documented and reviewed — not about your surgeons’ decisions. That line is not a legal hedge; it is what makes the work useful, because a consultant who is not second-guessing clinical judgment can be told the truth about the process.

Why us

Three emergency general surgery programs built from the ground up. Two verifications completed as the EGS medical director, at two different institutions. This is not consulting assembled from reading the standards — it is what was learned going through the process twice, on the hook, with the program’s status depending on it.