Gregory Jerome Jurkovich

Opinion from JAMA Surgery — Vagotomy, Inflammation, and the Injured Patient — Comment on “Vagus Nerve and Postinjury Inflammatory Response”

Although injuries are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA, few prior studies exist on the costs of trauma care. This article estimates treatment costs of care for 12 months follow...

The purpose of this report is to identify the most important research questions pertaining to the acute care of the injured patient using a Web-based Delphi technique to achieve expert opinion consensus. Experts in trauma care from the United States and Canada (n =39) generated structured research questions and then ranked these questions in order of importance, using a Web-based survey for question generation, question ranking, and a Delphi technique of consensus. Guidelines for question construction and ranking specified that participants considered questions that fall within the interest and domain of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)–National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). One hundred thirty-seven questions in 18 distinct categories of interest were initially generated. After two rounds of merging, collating, reassessing, and ranking by significance and importance, 25 research questions were deemed most important and significant in the care of the injured patient. Ten of these (40%) were considered to be appropriate issues for the CDC-NCIPC to address and fund, dealing with injury prevention strategies, trauma systems design and funding, the epidemiology of injury, and global outcome determinants. These 25 questions were also reviewed with consideration given to the most likely source of federal funding of investigations. This report identifies the areas of trauma care in which research efforts might best be directed. Fully 40% of the key research questions could be considered to fall under the interest and auspices of the CDC-NCIPC. The remaining questions cover a broad range of topics and likely funding sources, emphasizing the need for a coordinated oversight of research funding in trauma care.

Trauma registries offer distinct advantages and disadvantages when assessing the effectiveness of trauma systems. Detailed injury data and statistical comparisons that use TRISS methodology and the Major Trauma Outcome Study norms provide advantages over population-based or preventable death studies. However, miscodings and registry differences in injury severity coding limit the validity and generalizability of findings. The purpose of this study was to identify these strengths and weaknesses and to determine whether registry studies provide evidence of trauma system efficacy. A systematic review of published literature assessing trauma systems effectiveness by using registry-based data. Eight of 11 articles reviewed provided comparable data and consistently demonstrated a 15 to 20% reduction in the risk of death comparing trauma system outcomes to Major Trauma Outcome Study norms. These studies provide evidence of the effectiveness of trauma systems. However, future studies that use trauma registries would be strengthened by including both prehospital and postdischarge trauma deaths, standardizing trauma registry inclusion criteria and developing a contemporary national reference norm for trauma outcome.