Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Sex differences in thromboprophylaxis of the critically ill: a secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness. Sex- or gender-based analyses are rarely conducted and their effect on outcomes is unknown. We assessed for an effect modification of thromboprophylaxis (dalteparin or unfractionated heparin [UFH]) by sex on thrombotic (deep venous thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE], VTE) and mortality outcomes in a secondary analysis of the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT). METHODS: We conducted unadjusted analyses using Cox proportional hazards analysis, stratified by centre and admission diagnostic category, including sex, treatment, and an interaction term. Additionally, we performed adjusted analyses and assessed the credibility of our findings. RESULTS: Critically ill female (n = 1,614) and male (n = 2,113) participants experienced similar rates of DVT, proximal DVT, PE, any VTE, ICU death, and hospital death. In unadjusted analyses, we did not find significant differences in treatment effect favouring males (vs females) treated with dalteparin (vs UFH) for proximal leg DVT, any DVT, or any PE, but found a statistically significant effect (moderate certainty) favouring dalteparin in males for any VTE (males: hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.96 vs females: HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.68; P = 0.04). This effect remained after adjustment for baseline characteristics (males: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.96 vs females: HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.68; P = 0.04) and weight (males: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.96 vs females: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.73; P = 0.03). We did not identify a significant effect modification by sex on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found an effect modification by sex of thromboprophylaxis on VTE in critically ill patients that requires confirmation. Our findings highlight the need for sex- and gender-based analyses in acute care research.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La maladie thromboembolique veineuse (MTEV) est une complication fréquente au cours des maladies critiques. Des analyses basées sur le sexe ou le genre sont rarement effectuées et leur effet sur les critères d'évaluation est inconnu. Nous avons évalué une modification de l'effet de la thromboprophylaxie (daltéparine ou héparine non fractionnée [HNF]) selon le sexe sur la maladie thrombotique (thrombose veineuse profonde [TVP], embolie pulmonaire [EP], MTEV) et sur les critères de mortalité au cours d'une analyse secondaire de l'étude PROTECT (essai de prophylaxie de la thromboembolie en soins critiques). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé des analyses non ajustées au moyen d'une analyse des risques proportionnels de Cox, stratifiées par site et catégorie diagnostique à l'admission, incluant le sexe, le traitement et un terme d'interaction. Nous avons aussi réalisé des analyses ajustées et avons évalué la crédibilité de nos constatations. RéSULTATS: Les participant·es dans un état critique de sexe féminin (n = 1 614) et masculin (n = 2 113) ont présenté des taux semblables de TVP, EP, et MTEV de tout type, de décès en soins intensifs et de décès en milieu hospitalier. Nous n'avons pas trouvé de différences significatives dans les analyses non ajustées en faveur des hommes (par rapport aux femmes) traités par la daltéparine (par rapport à l'HNF) pour la TVP de la cuisse, la TVP de tout type, ou tout type d'EP; en revanche, nous avons trouvé un effet statistiquement significatif (certitude modérée) en faveur de la daltéparine pour la MTEV de tout type (hommes : rapport de risque [RR], 0,71; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,52 à 0,96 par rapport aux femmes : RR, 1,16; IC 95 %, 0,81 à 1,68; P = 0,04). Cet effet a persisté après ajustement pour les caractéristiques à l'inclusion (hommes : RR, 0,70; IC 95 %, 0,52 à 0,96 par rapport aux femmes : RR, 1,17; IC 95 %, 0,81 à 1,68; P = 0,04) et le poids (hommes : RR, 0,70; IC 95 %, 0,52 à 0,96 par rapport aux femmes : RR, 1,20; IC 95 %, 0,83 à 1,73; P = 0,03). Nous n'avons pas identifié de modification significative de l'effet en fonction du sexe sur la mortalité. CONCLUSION: Nous avons trouvé une modification de l'effet en fonction du sexe sur la thromboprophylaxie sur la MTEV chez les patient·es en état critique; cette constatation nécessite une confirmation. Nos constatations soulignent le besoin d'analyses en fonction du sexe et du genre dans la recherche sur les soins aigus.

Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of probiotics and usual care with usual care without probiotics in mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit patients alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT). METHODS: We conducted a health economic evaluation alongside the PROSPECT randomized control trial (October 2013-March 2019). We adopted a public healthcare payer's perspective. Forty-four intensive care units in three countries (Canada/USA/Saudi Arabia) with adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (N = 2,650) were included. Interventions were probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administered enterally twice daily. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2019 United States dollars (USD) over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge/death. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing probiotics vs usual care. The primary outcome was incremental cost per ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) event averted; secondary outcomes were costs per Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and mortality averted. Uncertainty was investigated using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per patient was USD 66,914 (91,098) for patients randomized to probiotics, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of USD 42,947 [22,239 to 76,205]. By comparison, for those not receiving probiotics, mean (SD) cost per patient was USD 62,701 (78,676) (median [IQR], USD 41,102 [23,170 to 75,140]; incremental cost, USD 4,213; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2,269 to 10,708). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for VAP or AAD events averted, probiotics were dominated by usual care (more expensive, with similar effectiveness). The ICERs were USD 1,473,400 per CDAD event averted (95% CI, undefined) and USD 396,764 per death averted (95% CI, undefined). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves reveal that probiotics were not cost-effective across wide ranges of plausible willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics for VAP prevention among critically ill patients were not cost-effective. Study registration data www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT01782755); registered 4 February 2013.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à comparer le rapport coût-efficacité d'un traitement avec probiotiques ajoutés aux soins habituels avec des soins habituels prodigués sans probiotiques chez les patients des soins intensifs sous ventilation mécanique dans le cadre de l'étude PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une évaluation de l'économie de la santé parallèlement à l'étude randomisée contrôlée PROSPECT (octobre 2013-mars 2019). Nous avons adopté le point de vue d'un payeur public de services de santé. Quarante-quatre unités de soins intensifs dans trois pays (Canada/États-Unis/Arabie saoudite) prenant soin de patients adultes gravement malades sous ventilation mécanique (n = 2650) ont été inclus. Les interventions ont été les suivantes : probiotiques (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administrés par voie entérale deux fois par jour. Nous avons recueilli les données concernant l'utilisation des ressources en soins de santé et estimé les coûts unitaires en dollars américains (USD) de 2019 sur un horizon temporel allant de la randomisation au congé de l'hôpital / décès. Nous avons calculé des rapports coût-efficacité différentiels (RCED) en comparant les probiotiques vs les soins habituels. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le coût différentiel par événement évité de pneumonie associée au ventilateur (PAV); les critères d'évaluation secondaires étaient les coûts par diarrhée associée au Clostridioides difficile (DACD), diarrhée associée aux antibiotiques (DAA) et mortalité évitées. L'incertitude a été étudiée à l'aide d'analyses d'amorçage et de sensibilité non paramétriques. RéSULTATS: Le coût moyen (écart type [ÉT]) par patient était de 66 914 (91 098) USD pour les patients randomisés au groupe probiotiques, avec une médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 42 947 USD [22 239 à 76 205]. En comparaison, pour ceux ne recevant pas de probiotiques, le coût moyen (ÉT) par patient était de 62 701 USD (78 676) (médiane [ÉIQ], 41 102 USD [23 170 à 75 140]; coût différentiel, 4213 USD; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95%, -2269 à 10 708). En matière de rapports coût-efficacité différentiels pour les événements de PAV ou DAA évités, les probiotiques étaient dominés par les soins habituels (plus coûteux, avec une efficacité similaire). Les RCED étaient de 1 473 400 USD par événement de DACD évitée (IC 95 %, non défini) et de 396 764 USD par décès évité (IC 95 %, non défini). Les courbes d'acceptabilité coût-efficacité révèlent que les probiotiques n'étaient pas rentables dans de larges gammes de seuils plausibles de volonté de payer. Les analyses de sensibilité n'ont pas modifié les conclusions. CONCLUSION: Les probiotiques utilisés pour prévenir la PAV chez les patients gravement malades n'étaient pas rentables. Enregistrement de l'étude : www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782755); enregistrée le 4 février 2013.

Evidence-informed consensus statements to guide COVID-19 patient visitation policies: results from a national stakeholder meeting.

PURPOSE: Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs. METHODS: We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies. RESULTS: Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews). CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les politiques hospitalières interdisant ou limitant les visites des familles à des proches à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ont affecté les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille (SCPF). Nous avons cherché à affiner les déclarations de consensus fondées sur des données probantes afin de guider la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs pendant la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 et les pandémies futures, et dans le but d'identifier les obstacles et les critères facilitants à leur mise en œuvre et à leur adoption répandue dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes. MéTHODE: Nous avons créé des déclarations de consensus à partir de 36 expériences fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. impacts sur les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les SCPF) et 63 stratégies fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. moyens d'améliorer les restrictions des visites) identifiées au cours d'un processus Delphi modifié (décrit ailleurs). Au cours de deux réunions virtuelles d'une demi-journée tenues les 7 et 8 avril 2021, 45 intervenants (patients, familles, chercheurs, cliniciens, décideurs) ont discuté et affiné ces déclarations de consensus. Grâce à une analyse descriptive qualitative du contenu, nous avons évalué les points suivants pour 99 déclarations de consensus : 1) leur importance pour l'amélioration des politiques de restriction des visites; 2) les modifications suggérées pour les rendre plus applicables; et 3) les critères facilitants et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de ces déclarations lors de la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: En discutant, les participants ont identifié trois domaines à améliorer : 1) la clarté, 2) l'accessibilité et 3) la faisabilité. Les intervenants ont identifié plusieurs critères facilitants à la mise en œuvre (énoncés clairs, flexibles, succincts et hiérarchisés disponibles dans plusieurs modes), des obstacles (manque perçu de flexibilité, manque de partenariat entre le gouvernement et l'hôpital, fatigue du changement) et des moyens de mesurer et de surveiller leur utilisation (p. ex., satisfaction des familles, entrevues qualitatives). CONCLUSION: Les directives existantes sur les politiques qui interdisaient ou limitaient les visites dans les unités de soins intensifs étaient déroutantes, difficiles à mettre en oeuvre et manquaient souvent de données probantes à l'appui. Des déclarations de consensus hiérarchisées, succinctes et claires permettant une adaptabilité locale sont nécessaires pour guider la création de politiques de visite en soins intensifs et pour optimiser les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

Effect of Probiotics on Incident Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Growing interest in microbial dysbiosis during critical illness has raised questions about the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification with probiotics. Prior randomized trials in this population suggest that probiotics reduce infection, particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), although probiotic-associated infections have also been reported. Objective: To evaluate the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on preventing VAP, additional infections, and other clinically important outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized placebo-controlled trial in 44 ICUs in Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia enrolling adults predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours. A total of 2653 patients were enrolled from October 2013 to March 2019 (final follow-up, October 2020). Interventions: Enteral L rhamnosus GG (1 × 1010 colony-forming units) (n = 1321) or placebo (n = 1332) twice daily in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was VAP determined by duplicate blinded central adjudication. Secondary outcomes were other ICU-acquired infections including Clostridioides difficile infection, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality. Results: Among 2653 randomized patients (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years), 2650 (99.9%) completed the trial (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years; 1063 women [40.1%.] with a mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 22.0 (SD, 7.8) and received the study product for a median of 9 days (IQR, 5-15 days). VAP developed among 289 of 1318 patients (21.9%) receiving probiotics vs 284 of 1332 controls (21.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 (95% CI, 0.87-1.22; P = .73, absolute difference, 0.6%, 95% CI, -2.5% to 3.7%). None of the 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, including other ICU-acquired infections, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, mortality, or length of stay showed a significant difference. Fifteen patients (1.1%) receiving probiotics vs 1 (0.1%) in the control group experienced the adverse event of L rhamnosus in a sterile site or the sole or predominant organism in a nonsterile site (odds ratio, 14.02; 95% CI, 1.79-109.58; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, administration of the probiotic L rhamnosus GG compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. These findings do not support the use of L rhamnosus GG in critically ill patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02462590.

Strategies aimed at preventing chronic opioid use in trauma and acute care surgery: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Globally every year, millions of patients sustain traumatic injuries and require acute care surgeries. A high incidence of chronic opioid use (up to 58%) has been documented in these populations with significant negative individual and societal impacts. Despite the importance of this public health issue, optimal strategies to limit the chronic use of opioids after trauma and acute care surgery are not clear. We aim to identify existing strategies to prevent chronic opioid use in these populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a scoping review of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature to identify studies, reviews, recommendations and guidelines on strategies aimed at preventing chronic opioid use in patients after trauma and acute care surgery. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of trauma and acute care surgery, pain, government and professional organisations. Databases will be searched for papers published from 1 January 2005 to a maximum of 6 months before submission of the final manuscript. Two reviewers will independently evaluate studies for eligibility and extract data from included studies using a standardised data abstraction form. Preventive strategies will be classified according to their types and targeted trauma populations and acute care surgery procedures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required as this study is based on the secondary use of published data. This work will inform research and clinical stakeholders on the required next steps towards the uptake of effective strategies aimed at preventing chronic opioid use in trauma and acute care surgery patients.

Canadian Critical Care Society clinical practice guideline: The use of vasopressin and vasopressin analogues in critically ill adults with distributive shock / Recommandation de pratique clinique de la Société canadienne de soins intensifs: utilisation de vasopressine et d'analogues de la vasopressine chez l'adulte en état critique souffrant de choc distributif

Purpose: Hemodynamic management of adults with distributive shock often includes the use of catecholamine-based vasoconstricting medications. It is unclear whether adding vasopressin or vasopressin analogues to catecholamine therapy is beneficial in the management of patients with distributive shock. The purpose of this guideline was to develop an evidence-based recommendation regarding the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors in the management of adults with distributive shock. Methods: We summarized the evidence informing this recommendation by updating a recently published meta-analysis. Then, a multidisciplinary panel from the Canadian Critical Care Society developed the recommendation using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: The updated systematic review identified 25 randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,737 patients with distributive shock. Compared with catecholamine therapy alone, the addition of vasopressin or its analogues was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 0.99; low certainty), reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88; high certainty), and increased risk of digital ischemia (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 5.25; moderate certainty). Conclusions: After considering certainty in the evidence, values and preferences, cost, and other factors, the expert guideline panel suggests using vasopressin or vasopressin analogues in addition to catecholamines over catecholamine vasopressors alone for the management of distributive shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).

Objectif: La prise en charge hémodynamique des adultes atteints de choc distributif comprend souvent le recours à des agents vasoconstricteurs à base de catécholamines. Nous ne savons pas si l'ajout de vasopressine ou d'analogues de la vasopressine au traitement de catécholamines est bénéfique pour la prise en charge des patients atteints de choc distributif. L'objectif de cette ligne directrice était de mettre au point une recommandation fondée sur des données probantes concernant l'ajout de vasopressine aux vasopresseurs à base de catécholamines pour la prise en charge des adultes touchés par un choc distributif. Méthode: Nous avons résumé les données probantes sur lesquelles se fonde cette recommandation en mettant à jour une méta-analyse publiée récemment. Par la suite, un panel multidisciplinaire de la Société canadienne de soins intensifs a mis au point une recommandation en se fondant sur la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Résultats: La revue systématique mise à jour a identifié 25 études randomisées contrôlées, comptant un total de 3737 patients atteints de choc distributif. Par rapport à un traitement à base de catécholamines seulement, l'ajout de vasopressine ou de ses analogues a été associé à une réduction du risque de mortalité (risque relatif [RR], 0,91; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,85 à 0,99; certitude faible), une réduction du risque de fibrillation auriculaire (RR, 0,77; IC 95 %, 0,67 à 0,88; certitude forte), et une augmentation du risque d'ischémie digitale (RR, 2,56; IC 95 %, 1,24 à 5,25; certitude modérée). Conclusion: Après avoir examiné le niveau de certitude des données probantes, les valeurs et préférences, le coût et d'autres facteurs, le panel d'experts pour l'élaboration des directives suggère d'utiliser des vasopressines ou des analogues de la vasopressine en plus des catécholamines, plutôt que seulement des vasopresseurs à base de catécholamines, pour la prise en charge du choc distributif (recommandation conditionnelle, données probantes de certitude faible).

Implementation and Evaluation of a Wiki Involving Multiple Stakeholders Including Patients in the Promotion of Best Practices in Trauma Care: The WikiTrauma Interrupted Time Series Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is the most common cause of mortality among people between the ages of 1 and 45 years, costing Canadians 19.8 billion dollars a year (2004 data), yet half of all patients with major traumatic injuries do not receive evidence-based care, and significant regional variation in the quality of care across Canada exists. Accordingly, our goal is to lead a research project in which stakeholders themselves will adapt evidence-based trauma care knowledge tools to their own varied institutional contexts and cultures. We will do this by developing and assessing the combined impact of WikiTrauma, a free collaborative database of clinical decision support tools, and Wiki101, a training course teaching participants how to use WikiTrauma. WikiTrauma has the potential to ensure that all stakeholders (eg, patients, clinicians, and decision makers) can all contribute to, and benefit from, evidence-based clinical knowledge about trauma care that is tailored to their own needs and clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: Our main objective will be to study the combined effect of WikiTrauma and Wiki101 on the quality of care in four trauma centers in Quebec. METHODS: First, we will pilot-test the wiki with potential users to create a version ready to test in practice. A rapid, iterative prototyping process with 15 health professionals from nonparticipating centers will allow us to identify and resolve usability issues prior to finalizing the definitive version for the interrupted time series. Second, we will conduct an interrupted time series to measure the impact of our combined intervention on the quality of care in four trauma centers that will be selected-one level I, one level II, and two level III centers. Participants will be health care professionals working in the selected trauma centers. Also, five patient representatives will be recruited to participate in the creation of knowledge tools destined for their use (eg, handouts). All participants will be invited to complete the Wiki101 training and then use, and contribute to, WikiTrauma for 12 months. The primary outcome will be the change over time of a validated, composite, performance indicator score based on 15 process performance indicators found in the Quebec Trauma Registry. RESULTS: This project was funded in November 2014 by the Canadian Medical Protective Association. We expect to start this trial in early 2015 and preliminary results should be available in June 2016. Two trauma centers have already agreed to participate and two more will be recruited in the next months. CONCLUSIONS: We expect that this study will add important and unique evidence about the effectiveness, safety, and cost savings of using collaborative platforms to adapt knowledge implementation tools across jurisdictions.