Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the long-term outcomes research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on trauma care, the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research was recommended. To address this recommendation, 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. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on long-term outcomes. METHODS: Experts in long-term outcomes were recruited to identify current gaps in long-term trauma outcomes research, generate research questions, and establish the priority for these questions using a consensus-driven, Delphi survey approach from February 2021 to August 2021. Panelists were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability including both military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, panelists were asked to prioritize 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: Thirty-two subject matter experts generated 482 questions in 17 long-term outcome topic areas. By Round 3 of the Delphi, 359 questions (75%) reached consensus, of which 107 (30%) were determined to be high priority, 252 (70%) medium priority, and 0 (0%) low priority. Substance abuse and pain was the topic area with the highest number of questions. Health services (not including mental health or rehabilitation) (64%), mental health (46%), and geriatric population (43%) were the topic areas with the highest proportion of high-priority questions. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of long-term trauma outcomes research identified 107 high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future long-term outcomes research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.

Core outcome measures for research in traumatic injury survivors: The National Trauma Research Action Plan modified Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, survival has been the main outcome measure for injury research. Given the impact of injury on quality of life, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has called for advancing the science of research evaluating the long-term outcomes of trauma survivors. This is necessary so that treatments and interventions can be assessed for their impact on a trauma patients' long-term functional and psychosocial outcomes. We sought to propose a set of core domains and measurement instruments that are best suited to evaluate long-term outcomes after traumatic injury with a goal for these measures to be adopted as a national standard. METHODS: As part of the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan, we conducted a two-stage, five-round modified online Delphi consensus process with a diverse panel of 50 key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, and trauma survivors from more than 9 professional areas across the United States. Before voting, panelists reviewed the results of a scoping review on patient-reported outcomes after injury and standardized information on measurement instruments following the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. RESULTS: The panel considered a preliminary list of 74 outcome domains (patient-reported outcomes) and ultimately reached the a priori consensus criteria for 29 core domains that encompass aspects of physical, mental, social, and cognitive health. Among these 29 core domains, the panel considered a preliminary list of 199 patient-reported outcome measures and reached the a priori consensus criteria for 14 measures across 13 core domains. Participation of panelists ranged from 65% to 98% across the five Delphi rounds. CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome measurement set that will facilitate the synthesis, comparison, and interpretation of long-term trauma outcomes research. These measures should be prioritized in all future studies in which researchers elect to evaluate long-term outcomes of traumatic injury survivors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV.

Perceived Discrimination Among Surgical Residents at Academic Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: Residents of color experience microaggressions in the work environment, are less likely to feel that they fit into their training programs, and feel less comfortable asking for help. Discrimination has been documented among surgical residents, but has not been extensively studied and largely remains unaddressed. We sought to determine the extent of perceived discrimination among general surgery residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Residents who were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial investigating a cultural dexterity curriculum completed baseline assessments prior to randomization that included demographic information and the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS). Data from the baseline assessments were analyzed for associations of EDS scores with race, ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic level, language ability, and training level. RESULTS: Of 266 residents across seven residency programs, 145 (55%) were men. Racial breakdown was 157 (59%) White, 45 (17%) Asian, 30 (11%) Black, and 12 (5%) Multiracial. The median EDS score was seven (range: 0-36); 58 (22%) fell into the High EDS score group. Resident race, fluency in a language other than English, and median household income were significantly associated with EDS scores. When controlling for other sociodemographic factors, Black residents were 4.2 (95% CI 1.62-11.01, P = 0.003) times as likely to have High EDS scores than their White counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Black surgical residents experience high levels of perceived discrimination on a daily basis. Institutional leaders should be aware of these findings as they seek to cultivate a diverse surgical training environment.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures after injury: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are being used to track long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after injury and can potentially be included in trauma registries. METHODS: Online databases were used to identify studies published between 2013 and 2019, from which we selected 747 articles that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 years or older at time of injury and used PROMs to evaluate recovery between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. RESULTS: Most studies were observational, with relatively small sample sizes, and predominantly on traumatic brain injury or orthopedic patients. The number of PROs assessed per study varied from one to 12, for a total of 2052 PROs extracted, yielding 74 unique constructs (physical health, 25 [34%]; mental health, 27 [37%]; social health, 12 [16%]; cognitive health, 7 [10%]; and quality of life, 3 [4%]). These 74 constructs were assessed using 355 different PROMs. Mental health was the most frequently examined outcome domain followed by physical health. Health-related quality of life, which appeared in more than half of the studies (n = 401), was the most common PRO evaluated, followed by depressive symptoms. Physical health was the domain with the highest number of PROMs used (n = 157), and lower-extremity functionality was the PRO that contributed most PROMs (n = 33). CONCLUSION: We identified a wide variety of PROMs available to track long-term PROs after injury in five different health domains: physical, mental, social, cognitive, and quality of life. However, efforts to fully understand the health outcomes of trauma patients remain inconsistent and insufficient. Defining PROs that should be prioritized and standardizing the PROMs to measure them will facilitate the incorporation of long-term outcomes in national registries to improve research and quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses, Level IV.

Concordance of Resident and Patient Perceptions of Culturally Dexterous Patient Care Skills.

PURPOSE: Disparities in surgical care persist. To mitigate these disparities, we are implementing and testing the Provider Awareness and Cultural dexterity Toolkit for Surgeons (PACTS), a curriculum to improve surgical residents' cultural dexterity during clinical encounters. We analyzed baseline data to look for concordance between residents' self-perceived cultural dexterity skills and patients' perceptions of their skills. We hypothesized that residents would rate their skills in cultural dexterity higher than patients would perceive those skills. METHODS: Prior to the implementation of the curriculum, surgical residents at 5 academic medical centers completed a self-assessment of their skills in culturally dexterous patient care using a modified version of the Cross-Cultural Care Survey. Randomly selected surgical inpatients at these centers completed a similar survey about the quality of culturally dexterous care provided by a surgery resident on their service. Likert scale responses for both assessments were classified as high (agree/strongly agree) or low (neutral/disagree/strongly disagree) competency. Resident and patient ratings of cultural dexterity were compared. Assessments were considered dexterous if 75% of responses were in the high category. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted using STATA 16. RESULTS: A total of 179 residents from 5 surgical residency programs completed self-assessments prior to receiving the PACTS curriculum, including 88 (49.2%) women and 97 (54.2%) junior residents (PGY 1-2s), of whom 54.7% were White, 19% were Asian, and 8.9% were Black/African American. A total of 494 patients with an average age of 55.1 years were surveyed, of whom 238 (48.2%) were female and 320 (64.8%) were White. Fifty percent of residents viewed themselves as culturally dexterous, while 57% of patients reported receiving culturally dexterous care; this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Residents who perceived themselves to be culturally dexterous were more likely to self-identify as non-White as compared to White (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, White patients were more likely to report highly dexterous care, whereas Black patients were more likely to report poorly dexterous care (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: At baseline, half of patients reported receiving culturally dexterous care from surgical residents at 5 academic medical centers in the United States. This was consistent with residents' self-assessment of their cultural dexterity skills. White patients were more likely to report receiving culturally dexterous care as compared to non-White patients. Non-White residents were more likely to feel confident in their cultural dexterity skills. A novel curriculum has been designed to improve these interactions between patients and surgical residents.

Long-term patient-reported outcome measures after injury: National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients who survive traumatic injury continue to suffer impaired functional status and increased mortality long after discharge. However, despite the need to improve long-term outcomes, trauma registries in the USA do not collect data on outcomes or care processes after discharge. One of the main barriers is the lack of consensus regarding the optimal outcome metrics. OBJECTIVES: To describe the methodology of a scoping review evaluating current evidence on the available measures for tracking functional and patient-reported outcomes after injury. The aim of the review was to identify and summarize measures that are being used to track long-term functional recovery and patient-reported outcomes among adults after injury. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase will be performed using the search terms for the population (adult trauma patients), type of outcomes (long-term physical, mental, cognitive, and quality of life), and measures available to track them. Studies identified will be reviewed and assessed for relevance by at least two reviewers. Data will be extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. This protocol is being reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will provide information regarding the currently available metrics for tracking functional and patient-reported outcomes after injury. The review will be presented to a multi-disciplinary stakeholder group that will evaluate these outcome metrics using an online Delphi approach to achieve consensus as part of the development of the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP). The results of this review will be presented at relevant national surgical conferences and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.