Activation and On-Scene Intervals for Severe Trauma EMS Interventions: An Analysis of the NEMSIS Database.

Objective: Time to care is a determinant of trauma patient outcomes, and timely delivery of trauma care to severely injured patients is critical in reducing mortality. Numerous studies have analyzed access to care using prehospital intervals from a Carr et al. meta-analysis of studies from 1975 to 2005. Carr et al.'s research sought to determine national mean activation and on-scene intervals for trauma patients using contemporary emergency medical services (EMS) records. Since the Carr et al. meta-analysis was published, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) created and refined the National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) database. We sought to perform a modern analysis of prehospital intervals to establish current standards and temporal patterns.Methods: We utilized NEMSIS to analyze EMS data of trauma patients from 2016 to 2019. The dataset comprises more than 94 million EMS records, which we filtered to select for severe trauma and stratified by type of transport and rurality to calculate mean activation and on-scene intervals. Furthermore, we explored the impact of basic life support (BLS) and advanced life support (ALS) of ground units on activation and on-scene time intervals.Results: Mean activation and on-scene intervals for ground transport were statistically different when stratified by rurality. Urban, suburban, and rural ground activation intervals were 2.60 ± 3.94, 2.88 ± 3.89, and 3.33 ± 4.58 minutes, respectively. On-scene intervals were 15.50 ± 10.46, 17.56 ± 11.27, and 18.07 ± 16.13 minutes, respectively. Mean helicopter transport activation time was 13.75 ± 7.44 minutes and on-scene time was 19.42 ± 16.09 minutes. This analysis provides an empirically defined mean for activation and on-scene times for trauma patients based on transport type and rurality. Results from this analysis proved to be significantly longer than the previous analysis, except for helicopter transport on-scene time. Shorter mean intervals were seen in ALS compared to BLS for activation intervals, however ALS on-scene intervals were marginally longer than BLS.Conclusions: With the increasing sophistication of geospatial technologies employed to analyze access to care, these intervals are the most accurate and up-to-date and should be included in access to care models.

Long-term Outcomes of Firearm Injury Survivors in the United States: The National Trauma Research Action Plan Scoping Review.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To describe the current literature regarding long-term physical, mental, and social outcomes of firearm injury survivors in the United States. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles published from 2013 to 2019 that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 or older and reported health outcomes between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Out of 747 articles identified, seven reported outcomes on United States-based civilian patients whose mechanism of injury involved firearms. We extended our publication date criteria from 1995 to 2020 and expanded the search strategy to include medical subject headings terms specific for firearm injury outcomes. Ultimately, ten articles met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: When studied, a significant proportion of patients surviving firearm injury screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (49%-60%) or were readmitted (13%-26%) within 6 months postinjury. Most studies reported worse long-term outcomes for firearm injury survivors when compared both to similarly injured motor vehicle collision survivors and to the United States general population, including increased chronic pain, new functional limitations, and reduced physical health composite scores. Studies also reported high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder, reduced mental health composite scores, lower employment and return to work rates, poor social functioning, increased alcohol, and substance abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the long-term health impact of firearm injury is scant, and heterogeneity in available studies limits the ability to fully characterize the outcomes among these patients. A better understanding of the long-term health impact of firearm injury would support systematic change in policy and patient care to improve outcomes.

Pupillometry measures of autonomic nervous system regulation with advancing age in a healthy pediatric cohort.

PURPOSE: To determine if variables of the pupillary light response mature with age and sex in a healthy pediatric cohort and the utility of pupillometry in assessment among pediatric participants. METHODS: After 1 min in a dark room to establish baseline, pupillometry was performed on 323 healthy, pediatric participants (646 eyes; 2-21 years; 175 females). Variables included initial pupil diameter, pupil diameter after light stimulus, percent pupillary constriction, latency to onset of constriction, average constriction velocity, maximum constriction velocity, average dilation velocity, and time from light stimulus to 75% of the initial pupil diameter. Data analyses employed ANOVAs and non-linear regressions. RESULTS: Analyses of age group differences revealed that participants 12-21 years old had a larger initial pupil diameter and pupil diameter after light stimulus, with males aged 12-18 years demonstrating a larger pupil diameter than all younger participants (ps < 0.05). Participants 12-18 years old had a slower maximum constriction velocity than participants 6-11 years old, with no sex differences (ps < 0.05). Furthermore, males aged 12-18 years old had a smaller percent constriction than males 6-11 years old (ps < 0.05). Regressions revealed that percent constriction and dilation velocity seemed to mature linearly, initial pupil diameter and ending pupil diameter matured quadratically, and the constriction velocity terms matured cubically. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed maturation of the pupillary light response by age and sex in healthy pediatric participants. Given the value of the pupillary light response as a biomarker, the results provide normative benchmarks for comparison in health and disease, including opiate-exposed and concussion patients.

Return to Employment After Stroke in Young Adults: How Important Is the Speed and Energy Cost of Walking?

Background and Purpose- A quarter of individuals who experience a stroke are under the age of 65 years (defined as young adults), and up to 44% will be unable to return to work poststroke, predominantly because of walking difficulties. No research study has comprehensively analyzed walking performance in young adult's poststroke. The primary aim of this study is to investigate how a stroke in young adults affects walking performance (eg, walking speed and metabolic cost) compared with healthy age-matched controls. The secondary aim is to determine the predictive ability of walking performance parameters for return to employment poststroke. Methods- Forty-six individuals (18-40 years: n=6, 41-54 years: n=21, 55-65 years: n=19) who have had a stroke and 15 healthy age-matched able-bodied controls were recruited from 6 hospital sites in Wales, United Kingdom. Type, location, cause of stroke, and demographic factors (eg, employment status) were recorded. Temporal and spatial walking parameters were measured using 3-dimensional gait analysis. Metabolic energy expenditure and metabolic cost of walking were captured during 3 minutes of walking at self-selected speed from measurements of oxygen consumption. Results- Stroke participants walked slower (P<0.004) and less efficiently (P<0.002) than the controls. Only 23% of stroke participants returned to employment poststroke. Walking speed was the strongest predictor (sensitivity, 0.90; specificity, 0.82) for return to work (P=0.004) with a threshold of 0.93 m/s identified: individuals able to walk faster than 0.93 m/s were significantly more likely to return to work poststroke than those who walked slower than this threshold. Conclusions- This study is the first to capture walking performance parameters of young adults who have had a stroke and identifies slower and less efficient walking. Walking speed emerged as the strongest predictor for return to employment. It is recommended that walking speed be used as a simple but sensitive clinical indicator of functional performance to guide rehabilitation and inform readiness for return to work poststroke.

A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors.

BACKGROUND: Recovery following a stroke is a long and ongoing process. Post-stroke follow-up after leaving the hospital is recommended. Methods for follow-up patients include face-to-face, via the telephone, post or online (internet). However, there is a debate which method is preferred by patients. This study aimed to determine whether telephone interview, online questionnaire and postal questionnaire were as acceptable as face-to-face follow-up. METHODS: In a blinded, UK-wide, multi-centre, Zelen's designed, 4-arm (postal, online, telephone, compared to face-to-face), pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of the mode of administration, stroke survivors were randomised to postal, online, telephone and face-to-face assessment, in an equal ratio (1:1:1:1). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that responded to the three allocation groups, compared to the face-to-face group. Subgroup analyses for age, aphasia and type and severity of stroke were carried out. A non-inferiority margin of 0.025 was used, and Holm-Bonferroni multiplicity adjustment was made. RESULTS: Of the 2074 eligible patients randomised, 55% were male (1142/2074), with an average age of 73.0 years old (SD = 13.2). Of those randomised, 22% (116/525), 9% (47/515) and 20% (101/513) responded in postal, online and telephone, respectively, compared to 17% (89/521) in the face-to-face group. The reduction in the online response rate compared to face-to-face was found to be both inferior and not non-inferior and estimated as an 8% reduction (95% CI 3.9 to 12.0%; p < 0.001). The association with lower online completion was present regardless of age, stroke type (haemorrhage or infarct) and stroke severity. In haemorrhagic stroke, the reduction in response online, compared to face-to-face, was 21% (95% CI 10 to 32%; p value = 0.002). A secondary analysis found non-aphasic stroke survivors preferred postal completion adjusted odds ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.95; p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: The study found that fewer stroke survivors completed follow-up assessment using an online method, compared to face-to-face. This finding was present in all age groups. Caution should be employed when considering online follow-up methods in stroke survivors, particularly in those who have experienced a cerebrovascular haemorrhage. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03177161 . Registered on 6 June 2017.

WormBase: A Model Organism Database.

WormBase is an open-access model-organism database that provides current and accurate genetic information of C. elegans and related nematodes. Users can search WormBase by several fields, including a gene or human disease. A special feature of the database is the inclusion of micropublications, peer-reviewed data that may go unpublished in traditional venues.

Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after intracranial venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) commonly presents with seizures in the acute period, and some people may develop recurrent seizures in the long term. The prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for the management of post-ICVT seizures is controversial, and there is currently no consensus on the optimal management of post-ICVT seizures. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review first published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures related to ICVT.(1) For the question of primary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in people who have had an ICVT but have not had a seizure.(2) For the question of secondary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in people who have had an ICVT and at least one seizure. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 onwards) to 20 April 2015, and we checked the reference lists of articles retrieved from the searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which participants with a diagnosis of ICVT were assigned to a treatment group (that is, receiving at least one AED) or control group (receiving placebo or no drug). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both review authors independently screened and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. If studies had been included in the review, one review author would have extracted the data and another would have checked the extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: No relevant studies were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures related to intracranial venous thrombosis. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to inform practice. Since the last version of this review no new studies have been found.

Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after intracranial venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) commonly presents with seizures in the acute period, and some people may develop recurrent seizures in the long term. The prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for the management of post-ICVT seizures is controversial, and there is currently no consensus on the optimal management of post-ICVT seizures. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 3. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures related to ICVT.(1) For the question of primary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in people who have had an ICVT but have not had a seizure.(2) For the question of secondary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in people who have had an ICVT and at least one seizure. SEARCH METHODS: We aimed to identify relevant studies in the Cochrane Epilepsy Group and Cochrane Stroke Group Specialised Registers. We also undertook specialised searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7) and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 22 August 2013) and checked the reference lists of articles retrieved from the searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which participants were assigned to a treatment group (that is, receiving at least one AED) or control group (receiving placebo or no drug). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both review authors independently screened and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. If studies had been included in the review, then one review author would have extracted the data and the other would have checked the extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: No relevant studies were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures related to intracranial venous thrombosis. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to inform practice. Since the last version of this review no new studies have been found.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the regulatory challenges Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report calling for a National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) requiring a resourced, coordinated, joint approach to trauma care research. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report recommended the identification of regulatory barriers to trauma research. The NTRAP Regulatory Challenges Panel of trauma researchers and regulatory professionals was convened to identify the most challenging aspects of regulatory processes involved in conducting research. METHODS: Trauma researchers and regulatory experts were recruited to identify and rate challenging regulatory issues in 2021 to 2022. Challenge statements were developed from a comprehensive scoping review. Panelists rated the challenge level for each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. The Delphi survey was conducted over three online rounds. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥60% agreement. Results of the Delphi survey were presented to the panel during a webinar. Panel participants then participated in breakout sessions to strategize solutions, share lessons learned, and identify where more regulatory guidance is needed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight subject matter experts rated 175 regulatory challenges, of which 141 (81%) reached the consensus threshold. Of the consensus-reaching challenge statements, 42 had a challenge rating of 6 or higher. Among the highest-rated challenges were issues pertaining to conducting prehospital research, exception from informed consent, mistrust of research among various racial and ethnic groups, and issues specific to conducting pediatric trauma research. CONCLUSION: This Delphi survey rated challenges culled from a regulatory literature scoping review. The panel identified the most challenging aspects of human subjects protection while conducting trauma research and recommended strategies and best practices to address them. The findings from this study were used to develop the NTRAP Investigator Toolkit, which is available on the internet as a resource for trauma researchers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Community of trauma care partnering with stakeholders to improve injury outcomes: focus group analysis.

Introduction: Engaging trauma survivors/caregivers results in research findings that are more relevant to patients' needs and priorities. Although their perspectives increase research significance, there is a lack of understanding about how best to incorporate their insights. We aimed to capture stakeholder perspectives to ensure research is meaningful, respectful, and relevant to the injured patient and their caregivers. Methods: A multiphase, inductive exploratory qualitative study was performed, the first phase of which is described here. Virtual focus groups to elicit stakeholder perspectives and preferences were conducted across 19 trauma centers in the USA during 2022. Discussion topics were chosen to identify patients' motivation to join research studies, preferences regarding consent, suggestions for increasing diversity and access, and feelings regarding outcomes, efficacy, and exception from informed consent. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify the range of perspectives expressed and any common themes that emerged. Results: Ten 90-minute focus groups included patients/caregiver (n=21/1) and researchers (n=14). Data analysis identified common themes emerging across groups. The importance of trust and preexisting relationships with the clinical care team were the most common themes across all groups. Conclusion: Our findings reveal common themes in preferences, motivations, and best practices to increase patient/caregiver participation in trauma research. The project's next phases are distribution of a vignette-based survey to establish broad stakeholder consensus; education and dissemination activities to share strategies that increase research engagement and relevance for patients; and the formation of a panel of patients to support future research endeavors. Level of evidence: Level IV.

An Executive Summary of the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP).

ABSTRACT: The National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) project successfully engaged multidisciplinary experts to define opportunities to advance trauma research and has fulfilled the recommendations related to trauma research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) report. These panels identified more than 4,800 gaps in our knowledge regarding injury prevention and the optimal care of injured patients and laid out a priority framework and tools to support researchers to advance this field. Trauma research funding agencies and researchers can use this executive summary and supporting manuscripts to strategically address and close the highest priority research gaps. Given that this is the most significant public health threat facing our children, young adults, and military service personnel, we must do better in prioritizing these research projects for funding and providing grant support to advance this work. Through the Coalition for National Trauma Research (CNTR), the trauma community is committed to a coordinated, collaborative approach to address these critical knowledge gaps and ultimately reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality faced by our patients.

Research priorities in venous thromboembolism after trauma: Secondary analysis of the National Trauma Research Action Plan.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality during recovery from injury and can result in significant health care costs. Despite advances in the past several decades in our approach to VTE prophylaxis after injury, opportunities exist to improve the delivery and implementation of optimal VTE prophylaxis. Here, we aim to identify consensus research questions related to VTE across all National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) Delphi expert panels to further guide the research agenda aimed at preventing VTE after injury. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of consensus-based research priorities that were collected using a Delphi methodology by 11 unique NTRAP panels that were charged with unique topic areas across the spectrum of injury care. The database of questions was queried for the keywords "VTE," "venous thromboembo," and "DVT" and then grouped into relevant topic areas. RESULTS: There were 86 VTE-related research questions identified across 9 NTRAP panels. Eighty-five questions reached consensus with 24 rated high priority; 60, medium priority; and 1, low priority. Questions related to the timing of VTE prophylaxis (n = 17) were most common, followed by questions related to risk factors for the development of VTE (n = 16), the effects of tranexamic acid on VTE (n = 11), the approach to dosing of pharmacologic prophylaxis (n = 8), and the pharmacologic prophylactic medication choice for optimal VTE prophylaxis (n = 6). CONCLUSION: National Trauma Research Action Plan panelists identified 85 consensus-based research questions that should drive dedicated extramural research funding opportunities to support quality studies aimed at optimizing VTE prophylaxis after injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Timing of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis initiation after injury: Findings from the consensus conference to implement optimal VTE prophylaxis in trauma.

ABSTRACT: Optimizing prophylaxis against venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) is a critical issue in the care of injured patients. Although these patients are at significant risk of developing VTE, they also present competing concerns related to exacerbation of bleeding from existing injuries. Especially after high-risk trauma, including injuries to the abdominal solid organs, brain, and spine, trauma providers must delineate the time period in which VTE prophylaxis successfully reduces VTE rates without encouraging bleeding. Although existing data are primarily retrospective in nature and further study is required, literature supports early VTE chemoprophylaxis initiation even for severely injured patients. Early initiation is most frequently defined as <48 hours from admission but varies from <24 hours to 72 hours and occasionally refers to time from initial trauma. Prior to chemical VTE prophylaxis initiation in patients at risk for bleeding, an observation period is necessary during which injuries must show themselves to be hemostatic, either clinically or radiographically. In the future, prospective examination of optimal timing of VTE prophylaxis is necessary. Further study of specific subsets of trauma patients will allow for development of effective VTE mitigation strategies based upon collective risks of VTE and hemorrhage progression.

Implementation science approaches to optimizing venous thromboembolism prevention in patients with traumatic injuries: Findings from the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma.

ABSTRACT: Disease burden of venous thromboembolism (VTE) without pharmacologic prophylaxis is high in trauma patients. Although VTE prophylaxis guidelines exist, studies on real-world use of VTE prophylaxis in trauma shows limited uptake of guideline recommendations. Despite existing guidelines, reports indicate that VTE prophylaxis implementation across trauma centers is lagging. Implementation barriers of VTE prophylaxis in trauma are multifactorial, and VTE prescribing practices require further optimization. Implementation science methods can help standardize and improve care; well-established approaches in medical and surgical hospitalized patients and their effects on clinical outcomes such as VTE and bleeding complications must be investigated because they apply to trauma patients. Nonadministration of VTE prophylaxis medications in hospitalized patients is associated with VTE events and remains a barrier to providing optimal defect-free care. Further investigations are required for VTE prophylaxis implementation across all trauma populations.

Proceedings from the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma.

ABSTRACT: On May 4 and 5, 2022, a meeting of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after trauma was convened by the Coalition for National Trauma Research, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, and hosted by the American College of Surgeons in Chicago, Illinois. This consensus conference gathered more than 40 in-person and 80 virtual attendees, including trauma surgeons, other physicians, thrombosis experts, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, and patient advocates. The objectives of the meeting were twofold: (1) to review and summarize the present state of the scientific evidence regarding VTE prevention strategies in injured patients and (2) to develop consensus on future priorities in VTE prevention implementation and research gaps.To achieve these objectives, the first part of the conference consisted of talks from physician leaders, researchers, clinical champions, and patient advocates to summarize the current state of knowledge of VTE pathogenesis and prevention in patients with major injury. Video recordings of all talks and accompanying slides are freely available on the conference website ( https://www.nattrauma.org/research/research-policies-templates-guidelines/vte-conference/ ). Following this curriculum, the second part of the conference consisted of a series of small-group breakout sessions on topics potentially requiring future study. Through this process, research priorities were identified, and plans of action to develop and undertake future studies were defined.The 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal VTE Prophylaxis in Trauma answered the National Trauma Research Action Plan call to define a course for future research into preventing thromboembolism after trauma. A multidisciplinary group of clinical champions, physicians, scientists, and patients delineated clear objectives for future investigation to address important, persistent key knowledge gaps. The series of papers from the conference outlines the consensus based on the current literature and a roadmap for research to answer these unanswered questions.

Novel therapeutic medications for venous thromboembolism prevention in trauma patients: Findings from the Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma.

ABSTRACT: Trauma patients are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite evidence-based guidelines and concerted efforts in trauma centers to implement optimal chemoprophylaxis strategies, VTE remains a frequent diagnosis in trauma patients. Current chemoprophylaxis strategies largely focus on the subcutaneous injection of low-molecular-weight heparin, which is administered twice daily. Novel approaches to pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis have the potential to reduce VTE rates by improving patient compliance through oral administration or through their ability to target alternative pathways that mediate thrombosis. While novel pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis strategies have been studied in nontrauma patients, there is a paucity of literature in trauma patients where the risk of thrombosis versus hemorrhage must be carefully considered. As a component of the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal VTE Prophylaxis in Trauma, this review provides an update of the novel chemoprophylaxis agents for potential use in trauma patients. Here, we will consider the relative risks and benefits related to the use of these drugs, evaluate the current literature in nontrauma patients, and consider future directions that could potentially improve posttrauma VTE prophylaxis.

Access to trauma center care: A statewide system-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to specialized trauma care is a vital element in patient outcome after severe and critical injury requiring the skills of trauma teams in levels I and II trauma centers to avoid preventable mortality. We used system-based models to estimate timely access to care. METHODS: Trauma system models consisted of ground emergency medical services, helicopter emergency medical services, and designated levels I to V trauma centers were constructed for five states. These models incorporated geographic information systems along with traffic data and census block group data to estimate population access to trauma care within the "golden hour." Trauma systems were further analyzed to identify the optimal location for an additional level I or II trauma center that would provide the greatest increase in access. RESULTS: The population of the states studied totaled 23 million people, of which 20 million (87%) had access to a level I or II trauma center within 60 minutes. Statewide-specific access ranged from 60% to 100%. Including levels III to V trauma centers, access within 60 minutes increased to 22 million (96%), ranging from 95% to 100%. The addition of a levels I and II trauma center in an optimized location in each state would provide timely access to a higher trauma capability for an additional 1.1 million, increasing total access to approximately 21.1 million people (92%). CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that nearly universal access to trauma care is present in these states when including levels I to V trauma centers. However, concerning gaps remain in timely access to levels I and II trauma centers. This study provides an approach to determine more robust statewide estimates of access to care. It highlights the need for a national trauma system, one in which all components of state-managed trauma systems are assembled in a national data set to accurately identify gaps in care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the trauma systems and informatics panel Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on the trauma care system recommended establishing a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded a study to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the trauma and burn care continuum. Panels were created to conduct a gap analysis and identify high-priority research questions. The National Trauma Research Action Plan panel reported here addressed trauma systems and informatics. METHODS: Experts were recruited to identify current gaps in trauma systems research, generate research questions, and establish the priorities using an iterative Delphi survey approach from November 2019 through August 2020. Panelists were identified to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability, including military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: patient/population, intervention, compare/control, and outcome. In subsequent surveys, panelists prioritized each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized as low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-seven subject matter experts generated 570 research questions, of which 427 (75%) achieved the consensus threshold. Of the consensus reaching questions, 209 (49%) were rated high priority, 213 (50%) medium priority, and 5 (1%) low priority. Gaps in understanding the broad array of interventions were identified, including those related to health care infrastructure, technology products, education/training, resuscitation, and operative intervention. The prehospital phase of care was highlighted as an area needing focused research. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of trauma systems and informatics research identified high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators and funding agencies in setting research priorities to continue to work toward Zero Preventable Deaths after trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Approaches for optimizing venous thromboembolism prevention in injured patients: Findings from the consensus conference to implement optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in trauma.

ABSTRACT: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major issue in trauma patients. Without prophylaxis, the rate of deep venous thrombosis approaches 60% and even with chemoprophylaxis may be nearly 30%. Advances in VTE reduction are imperative to reduce the burden of this issue in the trauma population. Novel approaches in VTE prevention may include new medications, dosing regimens, and extending prophylaxis to the postdischarge phase of care. Standard dosing regimens of low-molecular-weight heparin are insufficient in trauma, shifting our focus toward alternative dosing strategies to improve prophylaxis. Mixed data suggest that anti-Xa-guided dosage, weight-based dosing, and thromboelastography are among these potential strategies. The concern for VTE in trauma does not end upon discharge, however. The risk for VTE in this population extends well beyond hospitalization. Variable extended thromboprophylaxis regimens using aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants have been suggested to mitigate this prolonged VTE risk, but the ideal approach for outpatient VTE prevention is still unclear. As part of the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma, a multidisciplinary array of participants, including physicians from multiple specialties, pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice providers, and patients met to attack these issues. This paper aims to review the current literature on novel approaches for optimizing VTE prevention in injured patients and identify research gaps that should be investigated to improve VTE rates in trauma.