Dataset Information

Defining major trauma: a Delphi study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Retrospective trauma scores are often used to categorise trauma, however, they have little utility in the prehospital or hyper-acute setting and do not define major trauma to non-specialists. This study employed a Delphi process in order to gauge degrees of consensus/disagreement amongst expert panel members to define major trauma.

Method

A two round modified Delphi technique was used to explore subject-expert consensus and identify variables to define major trauma through systematically collating questionnaire responses. After initial descriptive analysis of variables, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in response to the Delphi statements between professional groups. A hierarchical cluster analysis was undertaken to identify patterns of similarity/difference of response. A grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis of data allowed for potentially multiple iterations of the Delphi process to be influenced by identified themes.

Results

Of 55 expert panel members invited to participate, round 1 had 43 participants (Doctor n = 20, Paramedic n = 20, Nurse n = 5, other n = 2). No consistent patterns of opinion emerged with regards to professional group. Cluster analysis identified three patterns of similar responses and coded as trauma minimisers, the middle ground and the risk averse. Round 2 had 35 respondents with minimum change in opinion between rounds. Consensus of > 70% was achieved on many variables which included the identification of life/limb threatening injuries, deranged physiology, need for intensive care interventions and that extremes of age need special consideration. It was also acknowledged that retrospective injury severity scoring has a role to play but is not the only method of defining major trauma. Various factors had a majority of agreement/disagreement but did not meet the pre-set criteria of 70% agreement. These included the topics of burns, spinal immobilisation and whether a major trauma centre is the only place where major trauma can be managed.

Conclusion

Based upon the output of this Delphi study, major trauma may be defined as: "Significant injury or injuries that have potential to be life-threatening or life-changing sustained from either high energy mechanisms or low energy mechanisms in those rendered vulnerable by extremes of age".

SUBMITTER: Thompson L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8108467 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pharmacists are uniquely placed in the community to be of assistance to disaster-affected patients. However, the roles undertaken by pharmacists in disasters are identified based on their own experiences and networks. There is currently no definition or acknowledgment of pharmacists' roles in disasters. OBJECTIVE:To acquire consensus from an expert panel of key opinion leaders within the field of disaster health on pharmacists' roles in disasters throughout the four disaster phases-prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. METHODS:A Delphi study consisting of three rounds of online surveys was utilised. Twenty-four key opinion leaders were contacted, with 15 completing all three rounds. The 15 expert panellists were presented with 46 roles identified in the literature and asked to rank their opinions on a 5-point Likert scale. This study used an international, all-hazard, and multijurisdictional approach. Consensus was benchmarked at 80% and any role which did not reach consensus was re-queried in the subsequent round. The third round provided the results of the Delphi study and sought commentary on the acceptance or rejection of the roles. RESULTS:Of the 46 roles provided to the expert panel, 43 roles were accepted as roles pharmacists are capable of undertaking in a disaster. There were five roles for the prevention phase, nine for the preparedness phase, 21 for the response phase, and eight for the recovery phase. The experts were asked to prioritise the top five roles for each of the disaster phases. The three roles which did not make consensus were deemed to be specialised roles for disaster pharmacists and not generalisable to the broader pharmacy profession. CONCLUSION:This study identifies pharmacists' roles in disasters which have been accepted by the international disaster health community. The international key opinion leaders recommended that pharmacists could be undertaking 43 roles in a disaster, however, this is dependent on individual jurisdiction considerations. Pharmacy professional associations need to advocate to policymakers for legislative support and to ensure pharmacists are equipped with the training and education required to undertake these roles within specific jurisdictions.

Project description:Background: Substantial declines in genital warts (GW) have been observed in countries with quadrivalent HPV vaccination programmes, with Australia showing the highest reductions due to early commencement and high vaccination coverage. There is a real potential to achieve GW elimination; however, no GW elimination definition exists. Taking Australia as a case study, we aimed to reach expert consensus on a proposed GW elimination definition using a modified Delphi process. Method: We used modelling and epidemiological data to estimate the expected number of new GW cases, from pre-vaccination (baseline) in 2006 to the year 2060 in Australian heterosexuals, men who have sex with men (MSM), and newly arrived international travellers and migrants. We used these data and the literature, to develop a questionnaire containing ten elimination-related items, each with 9-point Likert scales (1-strongly disagree; 9-strongly agree). The survey was completed by 18 experts who participated in a full day face-to-face modified Delphi study, in which individuals and then small groups discussed and scored each item. The process was repeated online for items where consensus (≥70% agreement) was not initially achieved. Median and coefficient of variation (COV) were used to describe the central tendency and variability of responses, respectively. Findings: There was a 95% participation rate in the face-to-face session, and 84% response rate in the final online round. The median item score ranged between 7.0 and 9.0 and the COV was ≤0.30 on all items. Consensus was reached that at ≥80% HPV vaccination coverage, GW will be eliminated as a public health problem in Australia by 2060. During this time period there will be a 95% reduction in population-level incidence compared with baseline, equivalent to <1 GW case per 10,000 population. The reductions will occur most rapidly in Australian heterosexuals, with 73%, 90% and 97% relative reductions by years 2021, 2030 and 2060, respectively. The proportion of new GW cases attributable to importation will increase from 3.6% in 2006 to ~49% in 2060. Interpretation: Our results indicate that the vaccination programme will minimise new GW cases in the Australian population, but importation of cases will continue. This is the first study to define GW elimination at a national level. The framework developed could be used to define GW elimination in other countries, with thresholds particularly valuable for vaccination programme impact evaluation. Funding: LK supported through an Australian Government Research Training Programme Scholarship; unconditional funding from Seqirus to support the Delphi Workshop.

Project description:Distal radius fractures are very common yet controversy exists regarding which require treatment and is reflected by significant variation in surgical intervention rate. Evidence regarding which fractures would benefit from intervention is varied and largely poor quality. This study had three aims; identify which radiographic parameters are clinically important; quantify the threshold of displacement at which intervention should occur and investigate which patient factors influence the decision to intervene. A modified three round Delphi study was carried out and responses were qualitatively analysed. The Delphi panel was composed of three groups of national and international expert surgeons: hand and wrist surgeons, trauma surgeons, and international researchers. 46 participants initially agreed to take part. 43 completed the first round and all then completed three rounds. Participants were asked questions based around case vignettes in patients of three ages (38, 58, 75 years). For all age groups ulnar variance was ranked as the most important extra-articular parameter, step was ranked as the most important intra-articular parameter. Agreed thresholds were the same for all parameters for patients aged 38 and 58. Surgeons would intervene with +2 mm ulnar variance, 10 degrees dorsal tilt, 2mm step and 3mm gap. In patients aged 75 the agreed thresholds were 20 degrees dorsal tilt, 3mm step and 4mm gap, consensus was not achieved for ulnar variance. Mental capacity, pre-injury functional level and medical co-morbidities were ranked as the most important factors influencing the decision to intervene. Qualitative analysis suggested that pre-injury function was the main theme within these factors. Our findings provide useful advice about which parameters should be measured and radiographic thresholds for intervention. These thresholds may then be modified depending on important patient factors. This information can help guide clinicians with management decisions and reduce variation.