Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities

Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.

DESIGN/SETTING

An international research priority-setting partnership.

PARTICIPANTS

People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb.

METHODS

A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021-October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.

RESULTS

A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions.

CONCLUSIONS

The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.

Prevalence of Frailty in European Emergency Departments (FEED): an international flash mob study

INTRODUCTION

Current emergency care systems are not optimized to respond to multiple and complex problems associated with frailty. Services may require reconfiguration to effectively deliver comprehensive frailty care, yet its prevalence and variation are poorly understood. This study primarily determined the prevalence of frailty among older people attending emergency care.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used a flash mob approach to collect observational European emergency care data over a 24-h period (04 July 2023). Sites were identified through the European Task Force for Geriatric Emergency Medicine collaboration and social media. Data were collected for all individuals aged 65 + who attended emergency care, and for all adults aged 18 + at a subset of sites. Variables included demographics, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), vital signs, and disposition. European and national frailty prevalence was determined with proportions with each CFS level and with dichotomized CFS 5 + (mild or more severe frailty).

RESULTS

Sixty-two sites in fourteen European countries recruited five thousand seven hundred eighty-five individuals. 40% of 3479 older people had at least mild frailty, with countries ranging from 26 to 51%. They had median age 77 (IQR, 13) years and 53% were female. Across 22 sites observing all adult attenders, older people living with frailty comprised 14%.

CONCLUSION

40% of older people using European emergency care had CFS 5 + . Frailty prevalence varied widely among European care systems. These differences likely reflected entrance selection and provide windows of opportunity for system configuration and workforce planning.

Consensus statement on the interhospital transfer of patients with acute aortic syndrome: TRAVERSING Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Standardisation of referral pathways and the transfer of patients with acute aortic syndromes (AAS) to regional centres are recommended by NHS England in the Acute Aortic Dissection Toolkit. The aim of the Transfer of Thoracic Aortic Vascular Emergencies to Regional Specialist INstitutes Group study was to establish an interdisciplinary consensus on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS to specialist high-volume aortic centres.

METHODS

Consensus on the key aspects of interhospital transfer of patients with AAS was established using the Delphi method, in line with Conducting and Reporting of Delphi Studies guidelines. A national patient charity for aortic dissection was involved in the design of the Delphi study. Vascular and cardiothoracic surgeons, emergency physicians, interventional radiologists, cardiologists, intensivists and anaesthetists in the United Kingdom were invited to participate via their respective professional societies.

RESULTS

Three consecutive rounds of an electronic Delphi survey were completed by 212, 101 and 58 respondents, respectively. Using predefined consensus criteria, 60 out of 117 (51%) statements from the survey were included in the consensus statement. The study concluded that patients can be taken directly to a specialist aortic centre if they have typical symptoms of AAS on the background of known aortic disease or previous aortic intervention. Accepted patients should be transferred in a category 2 ambulance (response time <18 min), ideally accompanied by transfer-trained personnel or Adult Critical Care Transfer Services. A clear plan should be agreed in case of a cardiac arrest occurring during the transfer. Patients should reach the aortic centre within 4 hours of the initial referral from their local hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus statement is the first set of national interdisciplinary recommendations on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS. Its implementation is likely to contribute to safer and more standardised emergency referral pathways to regional high-volume specialist aortic units.