Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the trauma systems and informatics panel Delphi survey

Elliott R. Haut, John P. Kirby, Jeffrey A. Bailey, Jimmy Phuong, Brian Gavitt, Kyle N. Remick, Kristan Staudenmayer, Jeremy W. Cannon, Michelle A. Price*, Eileen M. Bulger, Jeffrey A. Bailey, Stephen Barnes, Andrew C. Bernard, Brian J. Eastridge, Brian Gavitt, Jennifer M. Gurney, Elliott R. Haut, Donald H. Jenkins, Jay Johannigman, Connie JohnsonGregory J. Jurkovich, John P. Kirby, Russ S. Kotwal, Eric J. Kuncir, Ajai Malhotra, Kyle N. Remick, Thomas M. Scalea, Douglas Schuerer, Stacy A. Shackelford, Mary Ann Spott, Kristan Staudenmayer, Barclay T. Stewart, Sandra Strack Arabian, Robert Winchell

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)584-591
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Volume94
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Apr 2023
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Delphi survey
  • NTRAP
  • National Trauma Research Action Plan
  • Trauma systems
  • informatics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the trauma systems and informatics panel Delphi survey'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this