Trauma community clinical guidance needs: a mixed-methods iterative consensus-building study

Introduction Developing and implementing trauma clinical guidance is integral to providing quality care to all trauma patients while maintaining a minimum standard of treatment. A mixed-methods novel consensus-building approach was used to identify the current barriers to developing and implementing trauma clinical guidance and highlight the priority areas for change to better support end users. Methods As part of year 1 of the Design for Implementation: The Future of Trauma Clinical Guidance and Research Conference Series, preconference participant surveys and hybrid, professionally facilitated, structured dialogue were used to define the ideal future state of trauma clinical guidance development and dissemination. Novel to this context, in-person and virtual “user stories”, a form of structured focus group, were generated, and a “minimum viable product” (MVP), a form of brokered dialogue, was developed. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to evaluate preconference survey and “user story” results. Results 72 in-person and up to 35 virtual attendees participated. The majority (92%) of in-person attendees and nearly half (48%) of virtual attendees completed the preconference survey. Participants identified barriers along the continuum of clinical guidance development, dissemination, and adoption. Areas for improvement centered around the creation, storage, and use of guidance. Across the survey and user stories, participants expressed the need for clinical guidance that is comprehensive, evidence-based, coordinated, and easily accessible by all clinicians both domestically and abroad. The MVP targeted the risks and objectives to improved guidance. A prominent theme throughout this consensus-building assessment was the imperative for collaboration between professional societies for clinical guidance development and dissemination. Discussion Trauma clinical guidance must be current, consolidated, and coordinated with patient-centered outcomes prioritized. Next steps include turning the MVP produced into a prototype and refining it to inform a national redesign of trauma clinical guidance. Level of evidence Level III.