Establishing Consensus on Essential Resources for Musculoskeletal Trauma Care Worldwide

Abstract

<jats:sec> <jats:title>Background:</jats:title> <jats:p>Despite evidence that formalized trauma systems enhance patient functional outcomes and decrease mortality rates, there remains a lack of such systems globally. Critical to trauma systems are the equipment, materials, and supplies needed to support care, which vary in availability regionally. The purpose of the present study was to identify essential resources for musculoskeletal trauma care across diverse resource settings worldwide.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods:</jats:title> <jats:p>The modified Delphi method was utilized, with 3 rounds of electronic surveys. Respondents consisted of 1 surgeon with expertise in musculoskeletal trauma per country. Participants were identified with use of the AO Trauma, AO Alliance, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, and European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery networks. Respondents rated resources on a Likert scale from 1 (most important) to 9 (least important). The “most essential” resources were classified as those rated ≤2 by ≥75% of the sampled group.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results:</jats:title> <jats:p>One hundred and three of 111 invited surgeons completed the first survey and were included throughout the subsequent rounds (representing a 93% response rate). Most participants were fellowship-trained (78%) trauma and orthopaedic surgeons (90%) practicing in an academic setting (62%), and 46% had &gt;20 years of experience. Respondents represented low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs; 35%), upper-middle income countries (UMICs; 30%), and high-income countries (HICs; 35%). The initial survey identified 308 unique resources for pre-hospital, in-hospital, and post-hospital phases of care, of which 71 resources achieved consensus as the most essential. There was a significant difference (p &lt; 0.0167) in ratings between income groups for 16 resources, all of which were related to general trauma care rather than musculoskeletal injury management.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions:</jats:title> <jats:p>There was agreement on a core list of essential musculoskeletal trauma care resources by respondents from LMICs, UMICs, and HICs. All significant differences in resource ratings were related to general trauma management. This study represents a first step toward establishing international consensus and underscores the need to prioritize resources that are locally available. The information can be used to develop effective guidelines and policies, create best-practice treatment standards, and advocate for necessary resources worldwide.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Clinical Relevance:</jats:title> <jats:p>This study utilized the Delphi method representing expert opinion; however, this work did not examine patient management and therefore does not have a clinical Level of Evidence.</jats:p> </jats:sec>