Four ways to engage,ordered by commitment.
Most institutions should begin at the first tier and decide later whether to move further.
Technical review
Your subject-matter experts review the crosswalk and measure set and return written comment.
Commitment
2–4 hours of expert time
First step
An information request
Observer status
Your agency attends exercises and receives all artifacts and the evaluation, without participating in training.
Commitment
Attendance only
First step
Letter of interest
Founding pilot partner
Full participation: training cohorts, joint exercises, scored observation, after-action cycles.
Commitment
Named lead + staff time over 18 months
First step
Information request, then MOU
Research or evaluation partner
You hold the evaluation design and analysis, independent of the program.
Commitment
Faculty time; IRB where applicable
First step
Protocol discussion
Possible contributions.
Law enforcement
- → Operational review
- → Rescue task force integration
- → Command and zoning alignment
- → Scenario participation
- → Policy crosswalk
- → Pilot site participation
Fire/Rescue and EMS
- → Clinical-operational integration
- → Skills testing
- → Warm-zone response
- → Transport coordination
- → Data and quality review
- → Instructor participation
Hospitals and trauma centers
- → Handoff requirements
- → Trauma-alert workflows
- → Receiving-facility integration
- → Medical oversight
- → Clinical review
- → Outcome-research pathway
Universities
- → Independent evaluation
- → Implementation science
- → Research design
- → Statistical analysis
- → Simulation expertise
- → Publication and dissemination
Simulation centers and academies
- → Facilities
- → Scenario execution
- → Evaluator training
- → Video-assisted review
- → Instructor development
- → Fidelity testing
Emergency management
- → NIMS/ICS alignment
- → Multi-agency planning
- → Exercise governance
- → Mutual-aid integration
- → Corrective-action management
- → Regional replication
What a useful expression of interest contains.
A letter that helps is specific. At minimum it should identify: the signer's title and authority; the organization's current active-threat or interagency readiness problem, stated with operational specificity; which T-EMRP product the organization reviewed; how the proposed contribution complements existing TECC/TCCC, EMS, NIMS, or local programs; the contemplated role, participants, facilities, data, and medical direction; any resources or in-kind support anticipated; the concrete next step; and any approvals, procurement, legal, or funding conditions that remain open.
Authenticity over adjectives
A cautious letter describing a real review, a scheduled meeting, a specific role, and an unresolved approval condition is worth more than a sweeping endorsement that identifies no planned action.
Questions a prospective partner should ask.
Who approves the clinical content at our site, and can they veto it?
Your medical director. Yes.
What data leaves our building?
Only what a signed data-use agreement permits; the default is de-identified aggregate.
What happens if we withdraw?
You keep your artifacts; the pilot continues with the remaining sites; no penalty.
Who publishes, and can we review first?
The evaluator publishes; partners review before release.
What if the results are negative?
They are published. That is the commitment.