TY - JOUR
T1 - Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan
T2 - Results from the postadmission critical care research gap Delphi survey
AU - Brasel, Karen J.
AU - Braverman, Maxwell A.
AU - Phuong, Jimmy
AU - Price, Michelle A.
AU - Kaplan, Lewis J.
AU - Kozar, Rosemary
AU - Michetti, Christopher P.
AU - Callcut, Rachael
AU - Bulger, Eileen M.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work is supported by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command under contract number W81XWH-18-C-0179. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision unless so designated by other documentation. The NTRAP Publications Committee has reviewed this article for scientific content and consistency of data interpretation with previous NTRAP publications. DISCLOSURE
Publisher Copyright:
© Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/12/1
Y1 - 2022/12/1
N2 - INTRODUCTION The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan. In response, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care from prehospital care to rehabilitation as part of an overall strategy to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury. The Postadmission Critical Care Research panel was 1 of 11 panels constituted to develop this research agenda. METHODS We recruited interdisciplinary experts in surgical critical care and recruited them to identify current gaps in clinical critical care research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. The first of four survey rounds asked participants to generate key research questions. On subsequent rounds, we asked survey participants to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS Twenty-five subject matter experts generated 595 questions. By Round 3, 249 questions reached ≥60% consensus. Of these, 22 questions were high, 185 were medium, and 42 were low priority. The clinical states of hypovolemic shock and delirium were most represented in the high-priority questions. Traumatic brain injury was the only specific injury pattern with a high-priority question. CONCLUSION The National Trauma Research Action Plan critical care research panel identified 22 high-priority research questions, which, if answered, would reduce preventable death and disability after injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.
AB - INTRODUCTION The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan. In response, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care from prehospital care to rehabilitation as part of an overall strategy to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury. The Postadmission Critical Care Research panel was 1 of 11 panels constituted to develop this research agenda. METHODS We recruited interdisciplinary experts in surgical critical care and recruited them to identify current gaps in clinical critical care research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. The first of four survey rounds asked participants to generate key research questions. On subsequent rounds, we asked survey participants to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS Twenty-five subject matter experts generated 595 questions. By Round 3, 249 questions reached ≥60% consensus. Of these, 22 questions were high, 185 were medium, and 42 were low priority. The clinical states of hypovolemic shock and delirium were most represented in the high-priority questions. Traumatic brain injury was the only specific injury pattern with a high-priority question. CONCLUSION The National Trauma Research Action Plan critical care research panel identified 22 high-priority research questions, which, if answered, would reduce preventable death and disability after injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.
KW - Surgical critical care
KW - research agenda
KW - trauma
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85142403725&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85142403725&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/TA.0000000000003754
DO - 10.1097/TA.0000000000003754
M3 - Article
C2 - 35916626
AN - SCOPUS:85142403725
VL - 93
SP - 846
EP - 853
JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
SN - 2163-0755
IS - 6
ER -