Identifying the priority challenges in trauma care delivery for Australian and New Zealand trauma clinicians

Curtis, Kate; Nahidi, Shizar; Gabbe, Belinda; Vallmuur, Kirsten; Martin, Katherine; Shaban, Ramon Z.; Christey, Grant

doi:10.1016/j.injury.2020.07.033

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our Delphi study has focussed on UK priorities in the management of trauma. However, our identified research priorities are similar to those identified by similar methods recently in Australia and New Zealand, with a key focus on long-term patient-centred outcomes and the management of trauma in older people [ 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Use of a modified Delphi process to develop research priorities in major trauma

McElroy

Robinson

Battle

et al. 2021

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The burden of major trauma within the UK is ever increasing. There is a need to establish research priorities within the field. Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient-centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK. Methods A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Pre-hospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus amongst the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions. Results In phase 1, 201 questions were submitted by 65 stakeholders. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Research priorities across the patient pathway from roadside to rehabilitation were deemed of importance. Conclusions Consensus within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centre multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Use of a modified Delphi process to develop research priorities in major trauma

McElroy

Robinson

Battle

et al. 2021

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this issue of INJURY , Curtis and colleagues have identified clinical research priorities for Australia and New Zealand trauma researchers [16] . The work builds on parallel effort s to define the challenges for trauma care delivery [17] and the priorities for quality improvement and registry use [18] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the results may be viewed in the context of the specific population demographics in both urban and rural regions, geographical challenges related to distances and coverage for transport, injury patterns and the maturity of the current trauma system. In their report based on a modified Delphi technique, Curtis et al identified 5 priority areas [16] . Briefly put, the top priorities concern the injured patient at the extremes of age (the elderly and children); the role of performance indicators; the management of traumatic brain injury, and; prehospital triage criteria [16] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their report based on a modified Delphi technique, Curtis et al identified 5 priority areas [16] . Briefly put, the top priorities concern the injured patient at the extremes of age (the elderly and children); the role of performance indicators; the management of traumatic brain injury, and; prehospital triage criteria [16] . All 5 areas can easily be agreed as challenging topics and areas worthy of further investigation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, had a higher number of rural practitioners been involved, the focus on team training and exposure in low volume settings may have received a higher priority score, reflecting a need possibly viewed differently form a rural perspective than an urban. The researchers have recognized some of these limitations to the study design [16] , which the reader and interpreter of the report must take into consideration as well. Notably, other stakeholders, such as government officials and patients may have other views of the set priorities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations