Dataset Information

The Utstein template for uniform reporting of data following major trauma: a joint revision by SCANTEM, TARN, DGU-TR and RITG.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In 1999, an Utstein Template for Uniform Reporting of Data following Major Trauma was published. Few papers have since been published based on that template, reflecting a lack of international consensus on its feasibility and use. The aim of the present revision was to further develop the Utstein Template, particularly with a major reduction in the number of core data variables and the addition of more precise definitions of data variables. In addition, we wanted to define a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria that will facilitate uniform comparison of trauma cases.

Methods

Over a ten-month period, selected experts from major European trauma registries and organisations carried out an Utstein consensus process based on a modified nominal group technique.

Results

The expert panel concluded that a New Injury Severity Score > 15 should be used as a single inclusion criterion, and five exclusion criteria were also selected. Thirty-five precisely defined core data variables were agreed upon, with further division into core data for Predictive models, System Characteristic Descriptors and for Process Mapping.

Conclusion

Through a structured consensus process, the Utstein Template for Uniform Reporting of Data following Major Trauma has been revised. This revision will enhance national and international comparisons of trauma systems, and will form the basis for improved prediction models in trauma care.

SUBMITTER: Ringdal KG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2568949 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFluid resuscitation has long been a cornerstone of pre-hospital trauma care, yet its optimal approach remains undetermined. Although a liberal approach to fluid resuscitation has been linked with increased complications, the potential survival benefits of a restrictive approach in blunt trauma patients have not been definitively established. Consequently, equipoise persists regarding the optimal fluid resuscitation strategy in this population.MethodsWe analysed data from the two largest European trauma registries, the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) and the German TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU), between 2004 and 2018. All adult blunt trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score > 15 were included. We examined annual trends in pre-hospital fluid resuscitation, admission coagulation function, and mortality rates.ResultsOver the 15-year study period, data from 68,510 patients in the TARN cohort and 82,551 patients in the TR-DGU cohort were analysed. In the TARN cohort, 3.4% patients received pre-hospital crystalloid fluids, with a median volume of 25 ml (20-36 ml) administered. Conversely, in the TR-DGU cohort, 91.1% patients received pre-hospital crystalloid fluids, with a median volume of 756 ml (750-912 ml) administered. Notably, both cohorts demonstrated a consistent year-on-year decrease in the volume of pre-hospital fluid administered, accompanied by improvements in admission coagulation function and reduced mortality rates.ConclusionConsiderable variability exists in pre-hospital fluid resuscitation strategies for blunt trauma patients. Our data suggest a trend towards reduced pre-hospital fluid administration over time. This trend appears to be associated with improved coagulation function and decreased mortality rates. However, we acknowledge that these outcomes are influenced by multiple factors, including other improvements in pre-hospital care over time. Future research should aim to identify which trauma populations may benefit, be harmed, or remain unaffected by different pre-hospital fluid resuscitation strategies.

Project description:BackgroundPre-hospital advanced airway management with oxygenation and ventilation may be vital for managing critically ill or injured patients. To improve pre-hospital critical care and develop evidence-based guidelines, research on standardised high-quality data is important. We aimed to identify which airway data were most important to report today and to revise and update a previously reported Utstein-style airway management dataset.MethodsWe recruited sixteen international experts in pre-hospital airway management from Australia, United States of America, and Europe. We used a five-step modified nominal group technique to revise the dataset, and clinical study results from the original template were used to guide the process.ResultsThe experts agreed on a key dataset of thirty-two operational variables with six additional system variables, organised in time, patient, airway management and system sections. Of the original variables, one remained unchanged, while nineteen were modified in name, category, definition or value. Sixteen new variables were added. The updated dataset covers risk factors for difficult intubation, checklist and standard operating procedure use, pre-oxygenation strategies, the use of drugs in airway management, airway currency training, developments in airway devices, airway management strategies, and patient safety issues not previously described.ConclusionsUsing a modified nominal group technique with international airway management experts, we have updated the Utstein-style dataset to report standardised data from pre-hospital advanced airway management. The dataset enables future airway management research to produce comparable high-quality data across emergency medical systems. We believe this approach will promote research and improve treatment strategies and outcomes for patients receiving pre-hospital advanced airway management.Trial registrationThe Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Western Norway exempted this study from ethical review (Reference: REK-Vest/2017/260).

Project description:BackgroundIndicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define-for the first time-the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally.Methods and findingsThe Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries-who only made up 21% of the total attendees.ConclusionsTo track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators-at the basic level-should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.