TY - JOUR
T1 - Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan
T2 - Results from the trauma systems and informatics panel Delphi survey
AU - Haut, Elliott R.
AU - Kirby, John P.
AU - Bailey, Jeffrey A.
AU - Phuong, Jimmy
AU - Gavitt, Brian
AU - Remick, Kyle N.
AU - Staudenmayer, Kristan
AU - Cannon, Jeremy W.
AU - Price, Michelle A.
AU - Bulger, Eileen M.
AU - Bailey, Jeffrey A.
AU - Barnes, Stephen
AU - Bernard, Andrew C.
AU - Eastridge, Brian J.
AU - Gavitt, Brian
AU - Gurney, Jennifer M.
AU - Haut, Elliott R.
AU - Jenkins, Donald H.
AU - Johannigman, Jay
AU - Johnson, Connie
AU - Jurkovich, Gregory J.
AU - Kirby, John P.
AU - Kotwal, Russ S.
AU - Kuncir, Eric J.
AU - Malhotra, Ajai
AU - Remick, Kyle N.
AU - Scalea, Thomas M.
AU - Schuerer, Douglas
AU - Shackelford, Stacy A.
AU - Spott, Mary Ann
AU - Staudenmayer, Kristan
AU - Stewart, Barclay T.
AU - Arabian, Sandra Strack
AU - Winchell, Robert
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/4/1
Y1 - 2023/4/1
N2 - BACKGROUND The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on the trauma care system recommended establishing a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded a study to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the trauma and burn care continuum. Panels were created to conduct a gap analysis and identify high-priority research questions. The National Trauma Research Action Plan panel reported here addressed trauma systems and informatics. METHODS Experts were recruited to identify current gaps in trauma systems research, generate research questions, and establish the priorities using an iterative Delphi survey approach from November 2019 through August 2020. Panelists were identified to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability, including military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: patient/population, intervention, compare/control, and outcome. In subsequent surveys, panelists prioritized each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized as low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% agreement. RESULTS Twenty-seven subject matter experts generated 570 research questions, of which 427 (75%) achieved the consensus threshold. Of the consensus reaching questions, 209 (49%) were rated high priority, 213 (50%) medium priority, and 5 (1%) low priority. Gaps in understanding the broad array of interventions were identified, including those related to health care infrastructure, technology products, education/training, resuscitation, and operative intervention. The prehospital phase of care was highlighted as an area needing focused research. CONCLUSION This Delphi gap analysis of trauma systems and informatics research identified high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators and funding agencies in setting research priorities to continue to work toward Zero Preventable Deaths after trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.
AB - BACKGROUND The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on the trauma care system recommended establishing a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded a study to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the trauma and burn care continuum. Panels were created to conduct a gap analysis and identify high-priority research questions. The National Trauma Research Action Plan panel reported here addressed trauma systems and informatics. METHODS Experts were recruited to identify current gaps in trauma systems research, generate research questions, and establish the priorities using an iterative Delphi survey approach from November 2019 through August 2020. Panelists were identified to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability, including military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: patient/population, intervention, compare/control, and outcome. In subsequent surveys, panelists prioritized each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized as low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% agreement. RESULTS Twenty-seven subject matter experts generated 570 research questions, of which 427 (75%) achieved the consensus threshold. Of the consensus reaching questions, 209 (49%) were rated high priority, 213 (50%) medium priority, and 5 (1%) low priority. Gaps in understanding the broad array of interventions were identified, including those related to health care infrastructure, technology products, education/training, resuscitation, and operative intervention. The prehospital phase of care was highlighted as an area needing focused research. CONCLUSION This Delphi gap analysis of trauma systems and informatics research identified high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators and funding agencies in setting research priorities to continue to work toward Zero Preventable Deaths after trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.
KW - Delphi survey
KW - NTRAP
KW - National Trauma Research Action Plan
KW - Trauma systems
KW - informatics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151043542&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/TA.0000000000003867
DO - 10.1097/TA.0000000000003867
M3 - Article
C2 - 36623269
AN - SCOPUS:85151043542
SN - 2163-0755
VL - 94
SP - 584
EP - 591
JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
IS - 4
ER -