救援和临床主题专家对机动车碰撞后患者解救的德尔菲研究。

Tim Nutbeam, Rob Fenwick, Jason E Smith, Mike Dayson, Brian Carlin, Mark Wilson, Lee Wallis, Willem Stassen
{"title":"救援和临床主题专家对机动车碰撞后患者解救的德尔菲研究。","authors":"Tim Nutbeam,&nbsp;Rob Fenwick,&nbsp;Jason E Smith,&nbsp;Mike Dayson,&nbsp;Brian Carlin,&nbsp;Mark Wilson,&nbsp;Lee Wallis,&nbsp;Willem Stassen","doi":"10.1186/s13049-022-01029-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Approximately 1.3 million people die each year globally as a direct result of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). Following an MVC some patients will remain trapped in their vehicle; these patients have worse outcomes and may require extrication. Following new evidence, updated multidisciplinary guidance for extrication is needed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This Delphi study has been developed, conducted and reported to CREDES standards. A literature review identified areas of expertise and appropriate individuals were recruited to a Steering Group. The Steering Group formulated initial statements for consideration. Stakeholder organisations were invited to identify subject matter experts (SMEs) from a rescue and clinical background (total 60). SMEs participated over three rounds via an online platform. Consensus for agreement / disagreement was set at 70%. At each stage SMEs could offer feedback on, or modification to the statements considered which was reviewed and incorporated into new statements or new supporting information for the following rounds. Stakeholders agreed a set of principles based on the consensus statements on which future guidance should be based.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty SMEs completed Round 1, 53 Round 2 (88%) and 49 Round 3 (82%). Consensus was reached on 91 statements (89 agree, 2 disagree) covering a broad range of domains related to: extrication terminology, extrication goals and approach, self-extrication, disentanglement, clinical care, immobilisation, patient-focused extrication, emergency services call and triage, and audit and research standards. Thirty-three statements did not reach consensus.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study has demonstrated consensus across a large panel of multidisciplinary SMEs on many key areas of extrication and related practice that will provide a key foundation in the development of evidence-based guidance for this subject area.</p>","PeriodicalId":501057,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208189/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Delphi study of rescue and clinical subject matter experts on the extrication of patients following a motor vehicle collision.\",\"authors\":\"Tim Nutbeam,&nbsp;Rob Fenwick,&nbsp;Jason E Smith,&nbsp;Mike Dayson,&nbsp;Brian Carlin,&nbsp;Mark Wilson,&nbsp;Lee Wallis,&nbsp;Willem Stassen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13049-022-01029-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Approximately 1.3 million people die each year globally as a direct result of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). Following an MVC some patients will remain trapped in their vehicle; these patients have worse outcomes and may require extrication. Following new evidence, updated multidisciplinary guidance for extrication is needed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This Delphi study has been developed, conducted and reported to CREDES standards. A literature review identified areas of expertise and appropriate individuals were recruited to a Steering Group. The Steering Group formulated initial statements for consideration. Stakeholder organisations were invited to identify subject matter experts (SMEs) from a rescue and clinical background (total 60). SMEs participated over three rounds via an online platform. Consensus for agreement / disagreement was set at 70%. At each stage SMEs could offer feedback on, or modification to the statements considered which was reviewed and incorporated into new statements or new supporting information for the following rounds. Stakeholders agreed a set of principles based on the consensus statements on which future guidance should be based.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty SMEs completed Round 1, 53 Round 2 (88%) and 49 Round 3 (82%). Consensus was reached on 91 statements (89 agree, 2 disagree) covering a broad range of domains related to: extrication terminology, extrication goals and approach, self-extrication, disentanglement, clinical care, immobilisation, patient-focused extrication, emergency services call and triage, and audit and research standards. Thirty-three statements did not reach consensus.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study has demonstrated consensus across a large panel of multidisciplinary SMEs on many key areas of extrication and related practice that will provide a key foundation in the development of evidence-based guidance for this subject area.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208189/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-022-01029-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-022-01029-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:全球每年约有130万人直接死于机动车碰撞。在MVC之后,一些患者将被困在他们的车里;这些患者的预后较差,可能需要拔除。根据新的证据,需要更新多学科的解脱指南。方法:本德尔菲研究已开发、实施并按照CREDES标准报告。文献回顾确定了专业领域,并为指导小组招募了适当的个人。指导小组拟订了供审议的初步声明。利益相关者组织被邀请从救援和临床背景(共60)确定主题专家(sme)。中小企业通过网络平台参与了三轮活动。同意/不同意的一致意见设定为70%。在每一个阶段,中小企业都可以对所审议的报表提出反馈意见,或对其进行修改,并将其纳入下一轮的新报表或新的支持资料中。利益攸关方在协商一致声明的基础上商定了一套原则,未来的指导应以此为基础。结果:60家中小企业完成了第一轮,53家完成了第二轮(88%),49家完成了第三轮(82%)。就91项声明达成共识(89项同意,2项不同意),涵盖广泛的领域,涉及:脱模术语、脱模目标和方法、自我脱模、脱模、临床护理、固定、以患者为中心的脱模、紧急服务呼叫和分类、审计和研究标准。33项发言未达成共识。结论:这项研究表明,在许多关键的解脱领域和相关实践中,大型多学科中小企业小组达成了共识,这将为该主题领域的循证指导发展提供关键基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Delphi study of rescue and clinical subject matter experts on the extrication of patients following a motor vehicle collision.

A Delphi study of rescue and clinical subject matter experts on the extrication of patients following a motor vehicle collision.

Background: Approximately 1.3 million people die each year globally as a direct result of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). Following an MVC some patients will remain trapped in their vehicle; these patients have worse outcomes and may require extrication. Following new evidence, updated multidisciplinary guidance for extrication is needed.

Methods: This Delphi study has been developed, conducted and reported to CREDES standards. A literature review identified areas of expertise and appropriate individuals were recruited to a Steering Group. The Steering Group formulated initial statements for consideration. Stakeholder organisations were invited to identify subject matter experts (SMEs) from a rescue and clinical background (total 60). SMEs participated over three rounds via an online platform. Consensus for agreement / disagreement was set at 70%. At each stage SMEs could offer feedback on, or modification to the statements considered which was reviewed and incorporated into new statements or new supporting information for the following rounds. Stakeholders agreed a set of principles based on the consensus statements on which future guidance should be based.

Results: Sixty SMEs completed Round 1, 53 Round 2 (88%) and 49 Round 3 (82%). Consensus was reached on 91 statements (89 agree, 2 disagree) covering a broad range of domains related to: extrication terminology, extrication goals and approach, self-extrication, disentanglement, clinical care, immobilisation, patient-focused extrication, emergency services call and triage, and audit and research standards. Thirty-three statements did not reach consensus.

Conclusion: This study has demonstrated consensus across a large panel of multidisciplinary SMEs on many key areas of extrication and related practice that will provide a key foundation in the development of evidence-based guidance for this subject area.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信