Trauma quality indicators: internationally approved core factors for trauma management quality evaluation

Quality improvement program for the severely injured

Over recent decades, advancements in trauma care have significantly reduced mortality rates among severely injured patients. These improvements are largely attributable to the establishment of trauma care systems, including prehospital management protocols and the creation of trauma centres with immediate surgical team availability. However, patient outcomes continue to vary, reflecting differences in the quality of trauma care influenced by organisational models and local practices. To address this, governments and scientific organisations have underscored the importance of evaluating care quality at local, national, and international levels. This chapter explores strategies for assessing quality of trauma care, establishing reliable quality indicators (QIs), and standardising auditing processes to guide improvements in patient outcomes and system performance.

A comparative analysis of trauma-related mortality in South Korea using classification models

BACKGROUND

Reducing mortality among severe trauma patients requires the establishment of an effective emergency transportation system and the rapid transfer of patients to appropriate medical facilities. Machine learning offers significant potential to enhance the efficiency and quality of these emergency medical services.

METHODS

A retrospective secondary analysis was conducted using region-specific trauma survey data. The analysis focused on socio-economic characteristics, mechanisms of injury, injury severity, and variables indicating the effectiveness of the emergency medical system in optimizing machine learning algorithms for predicting severe patient transportation decisions.

RESULTS

Among the 8,769 patients with severe trauma, 7.2 % died in the hospital, with an average age of 50.06 years. The average injury severity score was 8.44, and the average time from accident reporting to arrival at the emergency medical facility was 55.39 min. The trend showed that as the level of the emergency medical institution increased, the patient transport time increased, while the mortality rate decreased. Additionally, XGBoost showed the best performance in mortality classification using a dataset sampled with SMOTE-ENN. Although the difference was minimal, undersampling slightly outperformed oversampling in the classification of emergency patients.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of emergency patients is influenced not only by transport time but also by the resources and staff levels of specialized emergency medical centers, which in turn affect survival rates. Furthermore, given the superior performance of composite sampling methods in analyzing imbalanced datasets, the importance of considering such imbalanced datasets in the analysis is evident.

Identification of major trauma using the simplified abbreviated injury scale to estimate the injury severity score: a diagnostic accuracy and validation study

BACKGROUND

The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) grade the severity of injuries and are useful for trauma audit and benchmarking. However, AIS coding is complex and requires specifically trained staff. A simple yet reliable scoring system is needed. The aim of this study was two-fold. First, to develop and validate a simplified AIS (sAIS) chart centred on the most frequent injuries for use by non-trained healthcare professionals. Second, to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the sAIS (index test) to calculate the simplified ISS (sISS) to identify major trauma, compared with the reference AIS (rAIS) to calculate the reference ISS (rISS).

METHODS

This retrospective study used data (2013-2014) from the Northern French Alps Trauma Registry to develop and internally validate the sAIS. External validation was performed with data from the Trauma Registry of Acute Care of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland (2019-2021). Both datasets comprised a random sample of 100 injured patients. Following the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2015 guidelines, all patients completed the rAIS and the sAIS. The sISS and the rISS were calculated using the sAIS and the rAIS, respectively. Accuracy was evaluated with the mean difference between the sISS and the rISS and the Pearson correlation coefficient. A clinically relevant equivalence limit was set at ± 4 ISS points. Precision was analyzed using Bland-Altmann plots with 95% limits of agreement.

RESULTS

Accuracy was good. The mean ISS difference of 0.97 (95% CI, -0.03 to 1.97) in the internal validation dataset and - 1.77 (95% CI, - 3.04 to 0.50) in the external validation dataset remained within the equivalence limit. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.93 in the internal validation dataset (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) and 0.82 in the external validation dataset (95% CI, 0.75-0.88). The limits of agreement were wider than the predetermined relevant range.

CONCLUSIONS

The sAIS is accurate, but slightly imprecise in calculating the ISS. The development of this scale increases the possibilities to use a scoring system for severely injured patients in settings with a reduced availability of the AIS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered.

Trauma Center model application in the University Hospital of Pisa: a single-center comparative study

The Trauma Center, Hub, is a highly specialized hospital indicated for complex major trauma management after stabilization at a 1st level hospital, Spoke. Although in the United States this organization demonstrated its effectiveness in mortality, in the Italian context, data available are limited. On 30 September 2018, the University Hospital of Pisa formalized the introduction of the Trauma Center, optimizing Emergency Department (ED) organization to guarantee the highest standard of care. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that the new model led better outcomes. We conducted a comparative retrospective study on 1154 major traumas over 24 months: the first 12 months (576 patients) correspond to the period before Trauma Center introduction, and the following 12 (457 patients) to the subsequent period. Results showed increase in greater dynamics and primary centralization by helicopter (p < 0.001, p 0.006). A systematic assessment with ABCDE algorithm was performed in a higher number of patients in the most recent period, from 38.4% to 80.3% (p < 0.001). Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) performed by the emergency doctor increased after Trauma Center introduction, p value < 0.001. The data show an increase of ATLS certification among staff from 51.9 to 71.4% and a reduction in early and late mortality after the Trauma Center introduction (p value 0.05 and < 0.01). Fewer patients required intensive and surgical treatments, with a shorter hospital stay. The results demonstrate the advantage in terms of outcomes in the organization of the Trauma Center in the Italian context.

London Major Trauma System: a review of an organised trauma system and the challenges it faces

London Major Trauma System (LMTS) was the first organised trauma system in the United Kingdom. It was created in 2010 in response to multiple reviews that suggested a large number of deaths from trauma may have been preventable. LMTS has all the features of a modern organised trauma system, including regionalisation, integration of care, transfer services, trauma teams, and a world leading research service. Since its introduction the benefits on mortality, morbidity, and other key metrics have been widely demonstrated. Despite its success, LMTS still faces a number of challenges; most notably from the ageing population, but also in ensuring equity of improvements across the entirety of the trauma network and throughout the whole patient journey. The very nature of LMTS being an inclusive and organised trauma system will help it in facing these challenges.

Interprofessional interventions that impact collaboration and quality of care across inpatient trauma care continuum: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Despite the recognized importance of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in trauma care, healthcare professionals often work in silos. Interprofessional (IP) interventions are crucial for optimizing IPC and delivering high-quality care across clinical contexts, yet their effectiveness throughout the inpatient trauma care continuum is not well understood. Thus, this review aimed to examine the literature on the effectiveness of IP interventions on collaboration processes and related outcomes in inpatient trauma care.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. We searched six databases for studies from the last decade on IP interventions in inpatient trauma care. Two independent reviewers categorized IP interventions (education, practice, organization) and extracted their impact on IPC processes and related outcomes (team performance, patient, organization).

RESULTS

Of the 17,397 studies screened, 148 met the inclusion criteria. Most were cohort designs (72%), conducted in level I trauma centers (57%) and emergency departments (51%), and involved surgeons (56%) and nurses (53%). Studies focused on IP organization interventions (51%), such as clinical pathways; IP practice interventions (35%), such as trauma team activation protocols; and IP education interventions (14%) including multi-method education. IP practice interventions most effectively improved team performance results, while IP education interventions primarily improved IPC processes. Positive patient outcomes were limited, with few studies examining organizational effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant advancements are still required in IP interventions and trauma care research. Future studies should rigorously explore the effectiveness of interventions throughout the inpatient trauma care continuum and focus on developing robust measures for patient and organizational outcomes.

Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.

DESIGN/SETTING

An international research priority-setting partnership.

PARTICIPANTS

People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb.

METHODS

A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021-October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.

RESULTS

A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions.

CONCLUSIONS

The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.

State of the art of trauma teams in Italy: A nationwide study

Trauma teams play a vital role in providing prompt and specialized care to trauma patients. This study aims to provide a comprehensive description of the presence and organization of trauma teams in Italy. A nationwide cross-sectional epidemiological study was conducted between July and October 2022, involving interviews with 137 designated trauma centers. Centers were stratified based on level: higher specialized trauma centers (CTS), intermediate level trauma centers (CTZ + N) and district general hospital with trauma capacity (CTZ). A standardized structured interview questionnaire was used to gather information on hospital characteristics, trauma team prevalence, activation pathways, structure, components, leadership, education, and governance. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results showed that 53 % of the centers had a formally defined trauma team, with higher percentages in CTS (73 %) compared to CTZ + N (49 %) and CTZ (39 %). The trauma team activation pathway varied among centers, with pre-alerts predominantly received from emergency medical services. The study also highlighted the lack of formally defined massive transfusion protocols in many centers. The composition of trauma teams typically included airway and procedure doctors, nurses, and healthcare assistants. Trauma team leadership was predetermined in 59 % of the centers, with anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians often assuming this role. The study revealed gaps in trauma team education and governance, with a lack of specific training for trauma team leaders and low utilization of simulation-based training. These findings emphasize the need for improvements in trauma management education, governance, and the formalization of trauma teams. This study provides valuable insights that can guide discussions and interventions aimed at enhancing trauma care at both local and national levels in Italy.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in trauma: Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery, Surgical Infection Society Europe, World Surgical Infection Society, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines

Trauma is a complex disease, and the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) in trauma patients is common practice. However, considering the increasing rates of antibiotic resistance, AP use should be questioned and limited only to specific cases. Antibiotic stewardship is of paramount importance in fighting resistance spread. Definitive rules or precise indications about AP in trauma remain unclear. The present article describes the indications of AP in traumatic lesions to the head, brain, torso, maxillofacial, extremities, skin, and soft tissues endorsed by the Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery, Surgical Infection Society Europe, World Surgical Infection Society, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and World Society of Emergency Surgery.

Indicators for the evaluation of musculoskeletal trauma systems: A scoping review and Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries. Musculoskeletal trauma results in the majority of post-traumatic morbidity and disability globally. The literature has reported many performance indicators relating to trauma care, but few specific to musculoskeletal injuries.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to establish a practical list of performance indicators to evaluate and monitor the quality and equity of musculoskeletal trauma care delivery in health systems worldwide.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed that identified performance indicators related to musculoskeletal trauma care. Indicators were organized by phase of care (general, prevention, pre-hospital, hospital, post-hospital) within a modified Donabedian model (structure, process, outcome, equity). A panel of 21 experts representing 45 countries was assembled to identify priority indicators utilizing a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

The scoping review identified 1,206 articles and 114 underwent full text review. We included 95 articles which reported 498 unique performance indicators. Most indicators related to the hospital phase of care (n = 303, 60%) and structural characteristics (n = 221, 44%). Mortality (n = 50 articles) and presence of trauma registries (n = 16 articles) were the most frequently reported indicators. After 3 rounds of surveys our panel reached consensus on a parsimonious list of priority performance indicators. These focused on access to trauma care; processes and key resources for polytrauma triage, patient stabilization, and hemorrhage control; reduction and immobilization of fractures and dislocations; and management of compartment syndrome and open fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature has reported many performance indicators relating to trauma care, but few specific to musculoskeletal injuries. To create quality and equitable trauma systems, musculoskeletal care must be incorporated into development plans with continuous monitoring and improvement. The performance indicators identified by our expert panel and organized in a modified Donabedian model can serve as a method for evaluating musculoskeletal trauma care.

National Assessment of Opportunities for Improvement in Preventable Trauma Deaths: A Mixed-Methods Study

Trauma is a significant public health issue worldwide, particularly affecting economically active age groups. Quality management of trauma care at the national level is crucial to improve outcomes of major trauma. In Korea, a biennial nationwide survey on preventable trauma death rate is conducted. Based on the survey results, we analyzed opportunities for improving the trauma treatment process. Expert panels reviewed records of 8282 and 8482 trauma-related deaths in 2017 and 2019, respectively, identifying 258 and 160 cases in each year as preventable deaths. Opportunities for improvement were categorized into prehospital, interhospital, and hospital stages. Hemorrhage was the primary cause of death, followed by sepsis/multiorgan failure and central nervous system injury. Delayed hemostatic procedures and transfusions were common areas for improvement in hospital stage. Interhospital transfers experienced significant delays in arrival time. This study emphasizes the need to enhance trauma care by refining treatment techniques, centralizing patients in specialized facilities, and implementing comprehensive reviews and performance improvements throughout the patient transfer system. The findings offer valuable insights for addressing trauma care improvement from both clinical and systemic perspectives.

Does participation in the European Trauma Course lead to new behaviours and organisational change? A Portuguese experience

BACKGROUND

Medical educational courses can be successful from an immediate feedback perspective but not lead to new behaviour or organisational changes in the workplace. The aim of this study was to assess the self-perceived impact of the European Trauma Course (ETC) on Reanima trainees' behaviour and organisational change.

METHODS

A 40-item questionnaire based on Holton's evaluation model was used to evaluate the candidate's perceptions. The results were analysed with descriptive and inferential statistical analysis using nonparametric tests with α = 0.05.

RESULTS

Out of 295 participants, 126 responded to the survey. Of these, 94% affirmed that the ETC modified their approach to trauma patients, and 71.4% described a change in their behaviour. Postcourse responders changed their behaviour in their initial approach to trauma care in the nontechnical skills of communication, prioritisation and teamwork. Being an ETC instructor strongly influenced the acquisition of new material, and this group was able to implement changes in attitudes. Individuals with no previous trauma course experience identified lack of self-efficacy as a significant obstacle to introducing new work-based learning. In contrast, responders with ATLS training noted a lack of ETC colleagues as the main impediment for moving from conceptualisation to experimentation in the workplace.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in the ETC led to behavioural changes in the workplace. However, the ability to influence others and bring about wider organisational changes was more difficult to achieve. Major factors were the status of the person, their experience and self-efficacy. National organisational impact was obtained, which went far beyond our aspirations in acknowledging change in individual daily practice. Future research studies will include the effect of implementing the ETC methodology on the outcome of trauma patients.

Impact of trauma teams on high grade liver injury care: a two-decade propensity score approach study in Taiwan

High-grade liver laceration is a common injury with bleeding as the main cause of death. Timely resuscitation and hemostasis are keys to the successful management. The impact of in-hospital trauma system on the quality of resuscitation and management in patients with traumatic high-grade liver laceration, however, was rarely reported. We retrospectively reviewed the impact of team-based approach on the quality and outcomes of high-grade traumatic liver laceration in our hospital. Patients with traumatic liver laceration between 2002 and 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted analysis using the propensity score were performed. Outcomes before the trauma team establishment (PTTE) and after the trauma team establishment (TTE) were compared. A total of 270 patients with liver trauma were included. After IPTW adjustment, interval between emergency department arrival and managements was shortened in the TTE group with a median of 11 min (p < 0.001) and 28 min (p < 0.001) in blood test reports and duration to CT scan, respectively. Duration to hemostatic treatments in the TTE group was also shorter by a median of 94 min in patients receiving embolization (p = 0.012) and 50 min in those undergoing surgery (p = 0.021). The TTE group had longer ICU-free days to day 28 (0.0 vs. 19.0 days, p = 0.010). In our study, trauma team approach had a survival benefit for traumatic high-grade liver injury patients with 65% reduction of risk of death within 72 h (Odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.14-0.86) and 55% reduction of risk of in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.23-0.87). A team-based approach might contribute to the survival benefit in patients with traumatic high-grade liver laceration by facilitating patient transfer from outside the hospital, through the diagnostic examination, and to the definitive hemostatic procedures.

National Follow-up Survey of Preventable Trauma Death Rate in Korea

BACKGROUND

The preventable trauma death rate survey is a basic tool for the quality management of trauma treatment because it is a method that can intuitively evaluate the level of national trauma treatment. We conducted this study as a national biennial follow-up survey project and report the results of the review of the 2019 trauma death data in Korea.

METHODS

From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, of a total of 8,482 trauma deaths throughout the country, 1,692 were sampled from 279 emergency medical institutions in Korea. All cases were evaluated for preventability of death and opportunities for improvement using a multidisciplinary panel review approach.

RESULTS

The preventable trauma death rate was estimated to be 15.7%. Of these, 3.1% were judged definitive preventable deaths, and 12.7% were potentially preventable deaths. The odds ratio for preventable traumatic death was 2.56 times higher in transferred patients compared to that of patients who visited the final hospital directly. The group that died 1 hour after the accident had a statistically significantly higher probability of preventable death than that of the group that died within 1 hour after the accident.

CONCLUSION

The preventable trauma death rate for trauma deaths in 2019 was 15.7%, which was 4.2%p lower than that in 2017. To improve the quality of trauma treatment, the transfer of severe trauma patients to trauma centers should be more focused.

High quality care following orthopaedic injury in Zambia: A qualitative, patient-centred study

BACKGROUND

Injuries are a significant cause of mortality and morbidity, particular in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While there is a focus on increasing injury care capacity, less attention is given to assessing, improving, and understanding the quality of care provided, especially from a patient perspective. This study therefore aims to understand what patients from a Zambian orthopaedic ward believe good quality care to be, to identify its key components, and contribute to better understanding what patients believe local healthcare priorities could be.

METHODS

Patients admitted to the orthopaedic ward of a Zambian tertiary care hospital were invited to take part in-depth face-to-face interviews. Interviews were continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Analysis was done using an inductive grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Of 13 patients approached, 12 consented to take part. Analysis of the themes from the transcripts led to the emergence of four core categories of quality care which are important to the patient: i) restoring the patient to normality (category: 'restoring normality'), ii) establishing trust between patients and providers ('trusting the provider'), iii) respecting the patient and allowing them to maintain autonomy ('autonomy and respect') iv) finding ways for patients to enjoy their time in the hospital ('enjoying life'). From these results, a patient perspective theory of quality care emerged. This theory posits the idea that high-quality care in this context needs to fulfil these four core categories. Additionally, these core categories were ranked on significance and priority.

CONCLUSION

The hierarchy of core categories could help to identify areas to improve care quality in this setting. Not only has this study helped to determine local priorities for achieving high-quality care but can encourage others to test injured patient perceptions of care quality in comparable settings.

Perceived usefulness of trauma audit filters in urban India: a mixed-methods multicentre Delphi study comparing filters from the WHO and low and middle-income countries

OBJECTIVE

To compare experts' perceived usefulness of audit filters from Ghana, Cameroon, WHO and those locally developed; generate context-appropriate audit filters for trauma care in selected hospitals in urban India; and explore characteristics of audit filters that correlate to perceived usefulness.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods approach using a multicentre online Delphi technique.

SETTING

Two large tertiary hospitals in urban India.

METHODS

Filters were rated on a scale from 1 to 10 in terms of perceived usefulness, with the option to add new filters and comments. The filters were categorised into three groups depending on their origin: low and middle-income countries (LMIC), WHO and New (locally developed), and their scores compared. Significance was determined using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We performed a content analysis of the comments.

RESULTS

26 predefined and 15 new filter suggestions were evaluated. The filters had high usefulness scores (mean overall score 9.01 of 10), with the LMIC filters having significantly higher scores compared with those from WHO and those newly added. Three themes were identified in the content analysis relating to medical relevance, feasibility and specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Audit filters from other LMICs were deemed highly useful in the urban India context. This may indicate that the transferability of defined trauma audit filters between similar contexts is high and that these can provide a starting point when implemented as part of trauma quality improvement programmes in low-resource settings.

Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Clinical Practices in Trauma Care

Importance

The use of quality indicators has been shown to improve injury care processes and outcomes. However, trauma quality indicators proposed to date exclusively target the underuse of recommended practices. Initiatives such as Choosing Wisely publish lists of practices to be questioned, but few apply to trauma care, and most have not successfully been translated to quality indicators.

Objective

To develop a set of evidence and patient-informed, consensus-based quality indicators targeting reductions in low-value clinical practices in acute, in-hospital trauma care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This 2-round Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) consensus study, conducted from April 20 to June 9, 2021, comprised an online questionnaire and a virtual workshop led by 2 independent moderators. Two panels of international experts from Canada, Australia, the US, and the UK, and local stakeholders from Québec, Canada, represented key clinical expertise involved in trauma care and included 3 patient partners.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Panelists were asked to rate 50 practices on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 quality indicator criteria: importance, supporting evidence, actionability, and measurability.

Results

Of 49 eligible experts approached, 46 (94%; 18 experts [39%] aged ≥50 years; 37 men [80%]) completed at least 1 round and 36 (73%) completed both rounds. Eleven quality indicators were selected overall, 2 more were selected by the international panel and a further 3 by the local stakeholder panel. Selected indicators targeted low-value clinical practices in the following aspects of trauma care: (1) initial diagnostic imaging (head, cervical spine, ankle, and pelvis), (2) repeated diagnostic imaging (posttransfer computed tomography [CT] and repeated head CT), (3) consultation (neurosurgical and spine), (4) surgery (penetrating neck injury), (5) blood product administration, (6) medication (antibiotic prophylaxis and late seizure prophylaxis), (7) trauma service admission (blunt abdominal trauma), (8) intensive care unit admission (mild complicated traumatic brain injury), and (9) routine blood work (minor orthopedic surgery).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this consensus study, a set of consensus-based quality indicators were developed that were informed by the best available evidence and patient priorities, targeting low-value trauma care. Selected indicators represented a trauma-specific list of practices, the use of which should be questioned. Trauma quality programs in high-income countries may use these study results as a basis to select context-specific quality indicators to measure and reduce low-value care.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Torso, Maxillofacial, and Skin Traumatic Lesions: A Systematic Review of Recent Evidence

Use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) in trauma patients is a common practice. However, considering the increasing rates of antibiotic resistance, AP use should be questioned and limited only to specific cases. We performed a systematic review of recent literature (from year 2000), aiming to summarize the state of the art on efficacy and appropriateness of AP in patients with traumatic injuries of torso, maxillofacial complex and skin (including burns). Twenty-six articles were selected. In thoracic trauma, AP could be useful in reducing infective complications in tube thoracostomy for penetrating trauma. In maxillo-facial trauma, AP could find a role in the peri-operative trauma setting in the case of a graft or prosthetic implant. In abdominal trauma, there is a lack of consensus on the definition of contamination, infection, antibiotic therapy, and prophylaxis. In burned patients, routine AP is not suggested. In the case of human bites to the extremities, AP could find an indication. Future studies should focus on the subcategories of patients at higher risk of infection, identifying those who would benefit from AP. Attention to antimicrobial stewardship and guidelines focused on AP in trauma are required, to reduce antibiotic abuse, and increase quality research.

Research priorities for the management of complex fractures: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

OBJECTIVE

To determine research priorities for the management of complex fractures, which represent the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.

DESIGN/SETTING

A national (UK) research priority setting partnership.

PARTICIPANTS

People who have experienced a complex fracture, their carers and relatives, and relevant healthcare professionals and clinical academics involved in treating patients with complex fractures. The scope includes open fractures, fractures to joints broken into multiple pieces, multiple concomitant fractures and fractures involving the pelvis and acetabulum.

METHODS

A multiphase priority setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 21 months (October 2019 to June 2021). A national survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 18 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.

RESULTS

A total of 532 uncertainties, submitted by 158 respondents (including 33 patients/carers) were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 58 unique indicative questions, of which all 58 were judged to be true uncertainties after review of the existing evidence. 136 people (including 56 patients/carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 18 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions.

CONCLUSIONS

The top 10 research priorities for complex fracture include questions regarding rehabilitation, complications, psychological support and return to life-roles. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research complex fractures over the coming decade.