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.

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 geriatric research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Treating older trauma patients requires a focus on the confluence of age-related physiological changes and the impact of the injury itself. Therefore, the primary way to improve the care of geriatric trauma patients is through the development of universal, systematic multidisciplinary research. To achieve this, the Coalition for National Trauma Research has developed the National Trauma Research Action Plan that has generated a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of geriatric trauma care from prehospital to rehabilitation. METHODS: Experts in geriatric trauma care and research were recruited to identify current gaps in clinical geriatric research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines ensuring heterogeneity and generalizability. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. The consensus was defined as more than 60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS: A total of 24 subject matter experts generated questions in 109 key topic areas. After editing for duplication, 514 questions were included in the priority ranking. By round 3, 362 questions (70%) reached 60% consensus. Of these, 161 (44%) were high, 198 (55%) medium, and 3 (1%) low priority. CONCLUSION: Among the questions prioritized as high priority, questions related to three types of injuries (i.e., rib fracture, traumatic brain injury, and lower extremity injury) occurred with the greatest frequency. Among the 25 highest priority questions, the key topics with the highest frequency were pain management, frailty, and anticoagulation-related interventions. The most common types of research proposed were interventional clinical trials and comparative effectiveness studies, outcome research, and health care systems research.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the Pediatric Research Gap Delphi Survey.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine trauma report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan to "strengthen trauma research and ensure that the resources available for this research are commensurate with the importance of injury and the potential for improvement in patient outcomes." With a contract from the Department of Defense, the Coalition for National Trauma Research created 11 expert panels to address this recommendation, with the goal of developing a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. This report outlines the work of the group focused on pediatric trauma. METHODS: Experts in pediatric trauma clinical care and research were recruited to identify gaps in current clinical pediatric trauma research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Using successive surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale categorized to represent priority. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement within the priority category. Priority questions were coded based on a dictionary of 118 National Trauma Research Action Plan taxonomy concepts in 9 categories to support comparative analysis across all panels. RESULTS: Thirty-seven subject matter experts generated 625 questions. A total of 493 questions (79%) reached consensus on priority level. Of those reaching consensus, 159 (32%) were high, 325 (66%) were medium, and 9 (2%) were low priority. The highest priority research questions related to surgical interventions for traumatic brain injury (intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy); the second highest priority was hemorrhagic shock. The prehospital setting was the highest priority phase of care. CONCLUSION: This diverse panel of experts determined that most significant pediatric trauma research gaps were in traumatic brain injury, hemorrhagic shock, and the prehospital phase of care. These research domains should be top priorities for funding agencies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic / Care Management; 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.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the Neurotrauma Research Panel Delphi Survey.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan. 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. Given the public health burden of injuries to the central nervous system, neurotrauma was one of 11 panels formed to address this recommendation with a gap analysis and generation of high-priority research questions. METHODS: We recruited interdisciplinary experts to identify gaps in the neurotrauma literature, generate research questions, and prioritize those questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. We conducted four Delphi rounds in which participants generated key research questions and then prioritized the importance of the questions on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. We then coded research questions using an National Trauma Research Action Plan taxonomy of 118 research concepts, which were consistent across all 11 panels. RESULTS: Twenty-eight neurotrauma experts generated 675 research questions. Of these, 364 (53.9%) reached consensus, and 56 were determined to be high priority (15.4%), 303 were deemed to be medium priority (83.2%), and 5 were low priority (1.4%). The research topics were stratified into three groups-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), mild TBI (mTBI), and spinal cord injury. The number of high-priority questions for each subtopic was 46 for severe TBI (19.7%), 3 for mTBI (4.3%) and 7 for SCI (11.7%). CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of neurotrauma research identified 56 high-priority research questions. There are clear areas of focus for severe TBI, mTBI, and spinal cord injury that will help guide investigators in future neurotrauma research. Funding agencies should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the prehospital and mass casualty research Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 trauma system report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, 11 expert panels completed a Delphi survey process to create a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on prehospital and mass casualty trauma care. METHODS: We recruited interdisciplinary national experts to identify gaps in the prehospital and mass casualty trauma evidence base and generate prioritized research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. We included military and civilian representatives. Panelists were encouraged to use the Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome format to generate research questions. We conducted four Delphi rounds in which participants generated key research questions and then prioritized the questions on a 9-point Likert scale to low-, medium-, and high-priority items. We defined consensus as ≥60% agreement on the priority category and coded research questions using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts in 9 categories. RESULTS: Thirty-one interdisciplinary subject matter experts generated 490 research questions, of which 433 (88%) reached consensus on priority. The rankings of the 433 questions were as follows: 81 (19%) high priority, 339 (78%) medium priority, and 13 (3%) low priority. Among the 81 high-priority questions, there were 46 taxonomy concepts, including health systems of care (36 questions), interventional clinical trials and comparative effectiveness (32 questions), mortality as an outcome (30 questions), prehospital time/transport mode/level of responder (24 questions), system benchmarks (17 questions), and fluid/blood product resuscitation (17 questions). CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of prehospital and mass casualty care identified 81 high-priority research questions to guide investigators and funding agencies for future trauma research.