North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Ambulance HQ, Bernicia House, Goldcrest Way, Newburn Riverside, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE15 8NY, England.
Northumbria University, Coach Lane Campus, Coach Lane, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE7 7TR, England.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021 May 10;29(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s13049-021-00870-w.
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.
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.
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.
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".
回顾性创伤评分常用于对创伤进行分类,但在院前或超急性期几乎没有作用,且对非专业人员无法定义何为重大创伤。本研究采用德尔菲法来评估专家小组成员对定义重大创伤的共识/分歧程度。
采用两轮改良德尔菲技术来探索主题专家共识,并通过系统地整理问卷回答来确定定义重大创伤的变量。在对变量进行初步描述性分析后,采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验来确定专业组之间对德尔菲陈述的响应是否存在统计学显著差异(p<0.05)。采用层次聚类分析来确定响应的相似/差异模式。对数据进行扎根理论分析,允许潜在的多次德尔菲过程受到已确定主题的影响。
在邀请参加的 55 名专家小组成员中,第一轮有 43 名参与者(医生 n=20,护理人员 n=20,护士 n=5,其他 n=2)。关于专业组,没有出现一致的意见模式。聚类分析确定了三种相似反应模式,并编码为创伤最小化者、中间立场和风险规避者。第二轮有 35 名受访者,两轮之间的意见变化最小。在许多变量上达成了>70%的共识,其中包括识别危及生命/肢体的损伤、生理紊乱、需要重症监护干预以及极端年龄需要特殊考虑。还承认回顾性损伤严重程度评分具有一定作用,但不是定义重大创伤的唯一方法。各种因素的大多数人表示同意/不同意,但不符合设定的 70%同意的标准。这些因素包括烧伤、脊柱固定和重大创伤中心是否是唯一可以管理重大创伤的地方。
根据这项德尔菲研究的结果,重大创伤可以定义为:“因极端年龄导致脆弱的个体因高能量机制或低能量机制而遭受的潜在危及生命或改变生命的严重损伤或多处损伤”。