Injured patients who would benefit from expedited major trauma centre care: a consensus-based definition for the United Kingdom.

Gordon Fuller, Samuel Keating, Janette Turner, Josh Miller, Chris Holt, Jason E Smith, Fiona Lecky
{"title":"Injured patients who would benefit from expedited major trauma centre care: a consensus-based definition for the United Kingdom.","authors":"Gordon Fuller, Samuel Keating, Janette Turner, Josh Miller, Chris Holt, Jason E Smith, Fiona Lecky","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2021.12.6.3.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Despite the importance of treating the ‘right patient in the right place at the right time’, there is no gold standard for defining which patients should receive expedited major trauma centre (MTC) care. This study aimed to define a reference standard applicable to the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service major trauma networks. Methods: A one-day facilitated roundtable expert consensus meeting was conducted at the University of Sheffield, UK, in September 2019. An expert panel of 17 clinicians was purposively sampled, representing all specialities relevant to major trauma management. A consultation process was subsequently held using focus groups with Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) representatives to review and confirm the proposed reference standard. Results: Four reference standard domains were identified, comprising: need for critical interventions; presence of significant individual anatomical injuries; burden of multiple minor injuries; and important patient attributes. Specific criteria were defined for each domain. PPI consultation confirmed all aspects of the reference standard. A coding algorithm to allow operationalisation in Trauma Audit and Research Network data was also formulated, allowing classification of any case submitted to their database for future research. Conclusions: This reference standard defines which patients would benefit from expedited MTC care. It could be used as the target for future pre-hospital injury triage tools, for setting best practice tariffs for trauma care reimbursement and to evaluate trauma network performance. Future research is recommended to compare patient characteristics, management and outcomes of the proposed definition with previously established reference standards.","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":"6 3","pages":"7-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8669639/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2021.12.6.3.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the importance of treating the ‘right patient in the right place at the right time’, there is no gold standard for defining which patients should receive expedited major trauma centre (MTC) care. This study aimed to define a reference standard applicable to the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service major trauma networks. Methods: A one-day facilitated roundtable expert consensus meeting was conducted at the University of Sheffield, UK, in September 2019. An expert panel of 17 clinicians was purposively sampled, representing all specialities relevant to major trauma management. A consultation process was subsequently held using focus groups with Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) representatives to review and confirm the proposed reference standard. Results: Four reference standard domains were identified, comprising: need for critical interventions; presence of significant individual anatomical injuries; burden of multiple minor injuries; and important patient attributes. Specific criteria were defined for each domain. PPI consultation confirmed all aspects of the reference standard. A coding algorithm to allow operationalisation in Trauma Audit and Research Network data was also formulated, allowing classification of any case submitted to their database for future research. Conclusions: This reference standard defines which patients would benefit from expedited MTC care. It could be used as the target for future pre-hospital injury triage tools, for setting best practice tariffs for trauma care reimbursement and to evaluate trauma network performance. Future research is recommended to compare patient characteristics, management and outcomes of the proposed definition with previously established reference standards.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将受益于快速重大创伤中心护理的受伤患者:英国基于共识的定义。
引言:尽管“在正确的时间、正确的地点治疗正确的患者”很重要,但没有黄金标准来定义哪些患者应该接受快速重大创伤中心(MTC)护理。本研究旨在确定适用于英国国家卫生服务局重大创伤网络的参考标准。方法:2019年9月,在英国谢菲尔德大学举行了为期一天的专家共识圆桌会议。一个由17名临床医生组成的专家小组被有目的地抽样,代表了与重大创伤管理相关的所有专业。随后,通过公众和患者参与(PPI)代表的焦点小组进行了咨询,以审查和确认拟议的参考标准。结果:确定了四个参考标准领域,包括:需要关键干预措施;存在严重的个体解剖损伤;多处轻伤的负担;以及重要的患者属性。为每个领域定义了具体的标准。PPI咨询确认了参考标准的所有方面。还制定了一种编码算法,允许在创伤审计和研究网络数据中进行操作,允许对提交给他们数据库的任何病例进行分类,以供未来研究。结论:该参考标准定义了哪些患者将从快速MTC护理中受益。它可以作为未来院前伤害分诊工具的目标,用于制定创伤护理报销的最佳实践费率,并评估创伤网络的绩效。建议未来的研究将拟议定义的患者特征、管理和结果与先前建立的参考标准进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A national perspective of ambulance clinicians' perceptions, experiences and decision-making processes when assessing older adults with a head injury: a mixed-methods study. A qualitative exploration of the views of paramedics regarding the use of dark humour. Chemsex: core knowledge for emergency medical service responders. Comparing telesimulation-based learning and e-learning as remote education delivery methods in pre-hospital practice. 'Endless variation on a theme': a document analysis of international and UK major trauma triage tools.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1