Advancing the scientific study of prehospital mass casualty response through a Translational Science process: the T1 scoping literature review stage.

PURPOSE: The European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation funding program awarded the NIGHTINGALE grant to develop a toolkit to support first responders engaged in prehospital (PH) mass casualty incident (MCI) response. To reach the projects' objectives, the NIGHTINGALE consortium used a Translational Science (TS) process. The present work is the first TS stage (T1) aimed to extract data relevant for the subsequent modified Delphi study (T2) statements. METHODS: The authors were divided into three work groups (WGs) MCI Triage, PH Life Support and Damage Control (PHLSDC), and PH Processes (PHP). Each WG conducted simultaneous literature searches following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Relevant data were extracted from the included articles and indexed using pre-identified PH MCI response themes and subthemes. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 925 total references to be considered for title and abstract review (MCI Triage 311, PHLSDC 329, PHP 285), then 483 articles for full reference review (MCI Triage 111, PHLSDC 216, PHP 156), and finally 152 articles for the database extraction process (MCI Triage 27, PHLSDC 37, PHP 88). Most frequent subthemes and novel concepts have been identified as a basis for the elaboration of draft statements for the T2 modified Delphi study. CONCLUSION: The three simultaneous scoping reviews allowed the extraction of relevant PH MCI subthemes and novel concepts that will enable the NIGHTINGALE consortium to create scientifically anchored statements in the T2 modified Delphi study.

A T2 Translational Science Modified Delphi Study: Spinal Motion Restriction in a Resource-Scarce Environment.

INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence is guiding changes in prehospital management of potential spinal injuries. The majority of settings related to current recommendations are in resource-rich environments (RREs), whereas there is a lack of guidance on the provision of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in resource-scarce environments (RSEs), such as: mass-casualty incidents (MCIs); low-middle income countries; complex humanitarian emergencies; conflict zones; and prolonged transport times. The application of Translational Science (TS) in the Disaster Medicine (DM) context was used to develop this study, leading to statements that can be used in the creation of evidence-based clinical guidelines (CGs). OBJECTIVE: What is appropriate SMR in RSEs? METHODS: The first round of this modified Delphi (mD) study was a structured focus group conducted at the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) Congress in Brisbane Australia on May 9, 2019. The result of the focus group discussion of open-ended questions produced ten statements that were added to ten statements derived from Fischer (2018) to create the second mD round questionnaire.Academic researchers and educators, operational first responders, or first receivers of patients with suspected spinal injuries were identified to be mD experts. Experts rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1.0. Statements that were in agreement reaching consensus were included in the final report; those that were not in agreement but reached consensus were removed from further consideration. Those not reaching consensus advanced to the third mD round.For subsequent rounds, experts were shown the mean response and their own response for each of the remaining statements and asked to reconsider their rating. As above, those that did not reach consensus advanced to the next round until consensus was reached for each statement. RESULTS: Twenty-two experts agreed to participate with 19 completing the second mD round and 16 completing the third mD round. Eleven statements reached consensus. Nine statements did not reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Experts reached consensus offering 11 statements to be incorporated into the creation of SMR CGs in RSEs. The nine statements that did not reach consensus can be further studied and potentially modified to determine if these can be considered in SMR CGs in RSEs.

Spinal Immobilization in Disasters: A Systematic Review.

In response to the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR; Niel, Belgium) release of an updated recommendation related to out-of-hospital spinal immobilization (SI) practice in 2015, a systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist of English-language studies published from January 2000 through July 2019 on the use of SI in resource-scarce environments (RSEs). Studies meeting the following criteria were included in the analysis: peer-reviewed statistical studies or reports detailing management of potential traumatic spinal injury in RSE, civilian, and military environments; as well as consensus clinical guidelines, academic center, or professional association protocols or policy statements detailing management of potential traumatic spinal injury in RSE, civilian, and military environments; statistical analysis; and subsequent management of spinal injuries after mass-casualty incidents, in complex humanitarian events or conflict zones, low-to middle-income countries, or prolonged transport times published by government and non-government organizations. Studies excluded from consideration were those not related to a patient with a potential traumatic spinal injury after a mass-casualty incident, in complex humanitarian event or conflict zones, in low-to middle-income countries, or with prolonged transport times.There were one thousand twenty-nine (1029) studies initially identified. After removal of duplicates, nine hundred-nineteen (919) were screened with eight hundred sixty-three (863) excluded. The remaining fifty-six (56) received further review with fourteen (14) selected studies achieving inclusion. The reviewed articles comprised six (6) types of studies and represented research from institutions in seven (7) different countries (Israel, United States, Haiti, Wales, Pakistan, China, and Iran). Thirteen (13) references were case reports/narrative reviews, policy statements, retrospective observational studies, narrative literature reviews, scoping reviews, and one systematic review. The majority of literature describing spinal cord injury was predominantly associated with earthquakes and blast-related disasters. There were no SI evidence-based clinical guidelines (EBG) in RSE. Information was obtained that could be used to formulate statements in a modified Delphi study to present to experts to obtain consensus SI EBG in RSE.