A Delphi process to determine clinicians attitudes and beliefs towards paediatric major incident triage within the United Kingdom.

Abstract

Introduction Triage is a key principle in the effective management of major incidents, yet there is a paucity of evidence surrounding the optimal method of paediatric major incident triage (MIT). This study aimed to derive consensus on key components of paediatric MIT among healthcare professionals involved in the management of paediatric major incidents. Methods This modified two-round online Delphi consensus study, delivered between July and October 2021, included participants from pre-hospital and hospital specialities involved in managing a paediatric major incident. Statements were derived iteratively based on review of MIT tools, and extant literature. A 5-point Likert agreement scale was used to determine consensus, which was set a priori at 70%. Results 111 clinicians completed both rounds, with 13 of 17 statements reaching consensus. Positive consensus was reached on the use of rescue breaths in mechanisms associated with hypoxia or asphyxiation, use of mobility assessment as a crude discriminator of injury, and use of adult physiology for older children. Whilst positive consensus was reached on the benefits of a single MIT tool for use across the entire adult and paediatric age range, there was negative consensus in relation to the clinical implementation of such a tool. Consensus could not be reached regarding the use of a single tool across the whole paediatric age range specifically, nor on the use of rescue breaths in blunt or penetrating trauma. Conclusion This Delphi study has established consensus among a large group of subject matter experts on several key elements of paediatric MIT. Further work is required to develop a triage tool that can be implemented based on emerging and ongoing research, and which is acceptable to clinicians.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

As this was a survey of health professionals identified via existing collaborative networks, formal ethics approval was not required according to the HRA framework decision tool.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif