Defining major trauma: a Delphi study

Abstract Introduction Retrospective trauma scores are often used to categorise trauma, however, they have little utility in the prehospital or hyper-acute setting and do not define major non-specialists. This study employed a Delphi process order gauge degrees of consensus/disagreement amongst expert panel members trauma. Method A two round modified technique was explore subject-expert consensus identify variables through systematically collating questionnaire responses. After initial descriptive analysis variables, Kruskal-Wallis tests were determine statistically significant differences ( p < 0.05) response statements between professional groups. hierarchical cluster undertaken patterns similarity/difference response. grounded theory approach qualitative data allowed for potentially multiple iterations be influenced by identified themes. Results Of 55 invited participate, 1 had 43 participants (Doctor n = 20, Paramedic Nurse 5, other 2). No consistent opinion emerged with regards group. Cluster three similar responses coded as minimisers, middle ground risk averse. Round 2 35 respondents minimum change rounds. Consensus > 70% achieved on many which included identification life/limb threatening injuries, deranged physiology, need intensive care interventions that extremes age special consideration. It also acknowledged retrospective injury severity scoring has role play but is only method defining Various factors majority agreement/disagreement did meet pre-set criteria agreement. These topics burns, spinal immobilisation whether centre place where can managed. Conclusion Based upon output this study, may defined as: “Significant injuries potential life-threatening life-changing sustained from either high energy mechanisms low those rendered vulnerable age”.