Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN/SETTING: An international research priority-setting partnership. PARTICIPANTS: People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb. METHODS: A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021-October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.

Patient and clinician perceptions of blunt chest trauma management and recovery: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To explore patient and clinician perceptions of blunt chest trauma management and recovery, when discharged directly home from the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: This was a qualitative study, completed in a trauma unit in Wales. Blunt chest trauma was defined as an isolated blunt injury to the chest wall, resulting in bruising or rib fractures. Data collection involved semi-structured telephone interviews and focus groups with patients and clinicians respectively. Data analysis was completed using reflexive thematic coding. RESULTS: Twelve patient interviews and three focus groups (23 clinicians) were conducted. In the interviews, seven males and five females participated, with a mean age of 54 years (range 28-74). Clinicians included nurses, doctors, and therapists. Two main themes emerged; 1) the ED experience and 2) recovery once home; each with a number of sub-themes. Results highlighted the significant impact of pain on recovery, and that there is a disjuncture between organisational perspectives of clinicians, and the individual personal perspective of patients. DISCUSSION: Recovery from blunt chest trauma for patients discharged directly home from the ED is a challenging and complex process. Protocol-driven care does not always lead to good patient experience, as it focuses primarily on hospital services and resources.

Recovery from blunt chest trauma is a complex process, leading to poor outcomes including pain and disability.Protocol-driven care of blunt chest trauma does not always lead to a good patient experience.Patients with blunt chest trauma benefit from reassurance that their severity of pain is normal, prior to discharge home from the Emergency Department (ED).Education regarding pacing activity, rest, and reliance on others for a period of time following injury can lead to an improved recovery experience.

Blunt mechanism chest wall injury: initial patient assessment and acute care priorities.

Blunt mechanism chest wall injury (CWI) is commonly seen in the emergency department (ED), since it is present in around 15% of trauma patients. The thoracic cage protects the heart, lungs and trachea, thereby supporting respiration and circulation, so injury to the thorax can induce potentially life-threatening complications. Systematic care pathways have been shown to improve outcomes for patients presenting with blunt mechanism CWI, but care is not consistent across the UK. Emergency nurses have a crucial role in assessing and treating patients who present to the ED with blunt mechanism CWI. This article discusses the initial assessment and acute care priorities for this patient group. It also presents a prognostic model for predicting the probability of in-hospital complications following blunt mechanism CWI.

Study to evaluate the readability and visual appearance of online resources for blunt chest trauma: an evaluation of online resources using mixed methods.

OBJECTIVES: Blunt chest trauma (BCT) is characterised by forceful and non-penetrative impact to the chest region. Increased access to the internet has led to online healthcare resources becoming used by the public to educate themselves about medical conditions. This study aimed to determine whether online resources for BCT are at an appropriate readability level and visual appearance for the public. DESIGN: We undertook a (1) a narrative overview assessment of the website; (2) a visual assessment of the identified website material content using an adapted framework of predetermined key criteria based on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services toolkit and (3) a readability assessment using five readability scores and the Flesch reading ease score using Readable software. DATA SOURCES: Using a range of key search terms, we searched Google, Bing and Yahoo websites on 9 October 2023 for online resources about BCT. RESULTS: We identified and assessed 85 websites. The median visual assessment score for the identified websites was 22, with a range of -14 to 37. The median readability score generated was 9 (14-15 years), with a range of 4.9-15.8. There was a significant association between the visual assessment and readability scores with a tendency for websites with lower readability scores having higher scores for the visual assessment (Spearman's r=-0.485; p<0.01). The median score for Flesch reading ease was 63.9 (plain English) with a range of 21.1-85.3. CONCLUSIONS: Although the readability levels and visual appearance were acceptable for the public for many websites, many of the resources had much higher readability scores than the recommended level (8-10) and visually were poor.Better use of images would improve the appearance of websites further. Less medical terminology and shorter word and sentence length would also allow the public to comprehend the contained information more easily.

Health care utilization outcomes in patients with blunt chest wall trauma following discharge from the emergency department: A retrospective, observational data-linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Although much is published reporting clinical outcomes in the patients with blunt chest wall trauma who are admitted to hospital from the ED, less is known about the patients' recovery when they are discharged directly without admission. The aim of this study was to investigate the health care utilization outcomes in adult patients with blunt chest wall trauma, discharged directly from ED in a trauma unit in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This was a longitudinal, retrospective, single-center, observational study incorporating analysis of linked datasets, using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank for admissions to a trauma unit in the Wales, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020. All patients 16 years or older with a primary diagnosis of blunt chest wall trauma discharged directly home were included. Data were analyzed using a negative binomial regression model. RESULTS: There were 3,205 presentations to the ED included. Mean age was 53 years, 57% were male, with the predominant injury mechanism being a low velocity fall (50%). 93% of the cohort sustained between 0 and 3 rib fractures. Four percent of the cohort were reported to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 4% using preinjury anticoagulants. On regression analysis, inpatient admissions, outpatient appointments and primary care contacts all significantly increased in the 12-week period postinjury, compared with the 12-week period preinjury (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-1.99; p < 0.001; OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43; p < 0.001; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; p < 0.001, respectively). Risk of health care resource utilization increased significantly with each additional year of age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and preinjury anticoagulant use (all p < 0.05). Social deprivation and number of rib fracture did not impact outcomes. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate the need for appropriate signposting and follow-up for patients with blunt chest wall trauma presenting to the ED, not requiring admission to the hospital. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

A comparative study into the effects of venous and arterial blood on clot microstructure in critically unwell patients. Assessment of the diagnostic potential of a biomarker of haemostasis.

Blood for coagulation analysis can be sampled from the arterial or venous system in intensive care units (ICU). The determination of clot microstructure and strength by fractal analysis (df) gives valuable information in a range of vascular haemostatic disease and sepsis. We aimed to determine if df could be measured equally and comparatively in arterial or venous blood, and 45 critically ill patients in an ICU were recruited. df was found to be readily measured in arterial blood with results comparable to those in venous blood and that add value of df as a potential marker of haemostasis in these patients.

Feasibility of mobilisation in ICU: a multi-centre point prevalence study of mobility practices in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation in critical care is recommended within clinical guidance; however, mobilisation prevalence across the UK is unknown. The study aimed to determine the proportion of patients mobilised out of bed within 48-72 h, to describe their physiological status, and to compare this to published consensus safety recommendations for out-of-bed activity. METHODS: A UK cross-sectional, multi-centre, observational study of adult critical care mobility practices was conducted. Demographic, physiological and organ support data, mobility level, and rationale for not mobilising out of bed, were collected for all patients on 3rd March 2022. Patients were categorised as: Group 1-mobilised ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) ≥ 3; Group 2-not-mobilised IMS < 3 with physiological reasons; or Group 3-not-mobilised IMS < 3 with non-physiological barriers to mobilisation. Rationale for the decision to not mobilise was collected qualitatively. Regression analysis was used to compare the physiological parameters of Group 1 (mobilised) versus Group 2 (not-mobilised with physiological reasons). Patients were stratified as 'low-risk', 'potential-risk' or 'high-risk' using published risk of adverse event ratings. RESULTS: Data were collected for 960 patients across 84 UK critical care units. Of these 393 (41%) mobilised, 416 (43%) were not-mobilised due to physiological reasons and 151 (16%) were not mobilised with non-physiological reasons. A total of 371 patients had been admitted for ≤ 3 days, of whom 180 (48%) were mobilised, 140 (38%) were not mobilised with physiological reasons, and 51 (14%) were not mobilised with non-physiological reasons. Of the 809 without non-physiological barriers to mobilisation, 367 (45%) had a low risk of adverse event rating and 120 (15%) a potential risk, of whom 309 (84%) and 78 (65%) mobilised, respectively. Mobility was associated with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 1 to + 1, lower doses of vasoactive agents, a lower inspired oxygen requirement. CONCLUSION: Although only 40% of patients mobilised out of bed, 89% of those defined 'low-risk' did so. There is significant overlap in physiological parameters for mobilisation versus non-mobilisation groups, suggesting a comprehensive physiological assessment is vital in decision making rather than relying on arbitrary time points. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT05281705 Registered March 16, 2022. Retrospectively registered.

Scoping review of the literature to ascertain how the STUMBL Score clinical prediction model is used to manage patients with blunt chest wall trauma in emergency care.

INTRODUCTION: The STUMBL Score clinical prediction model was originally developed and externally validated to support clinical decision-making of patients with blunt chest wall trauma in the Emergency Department. The aim of this scoping review was to understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to the STUMBL Score clinical prediction model as a component of the management of patients with blunt chest wall trauma managed in the Emergency Care setting. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across databases, including Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 2014 to Feb 2023. In addition, a search of the grey literature was undertaken along with citation searching of relevant studies. Published and non-published sources of all research designs were included. Data extracted included specific details about the participants, concept, context, study methods and key findings relevant to the review question. Data extraction followed the JBI guidance and results presented in tabular format accompanied with a narrative summary. RESULTS: A total of 44 sources originating from eight countries were identified, 28 were published and 16 grey literature. Sources were grouped into four separate categories: 1) external validation studies, 2) guidance documents, 3) practice reviews and educational resources 3) research studies and quality improvement projects, 4) grey literature unpublished resources. This body of evidence describes the clinical utility of the STUMBL Score and has identify how the score is being implemented and used differently in different settings including analgesic selection and participant eligibility for including in chest wall injury research studies. DISCUSSION: This review demonstrates how the STUMBL Score has evolved from solely predicting risk of respiratory complications to a measure which supports clinical decision making for the use of complex analgesic modes and as a guide for eligibility in chest wall injury trauma research studies. Despite external validation of the STUMBL Score, there is a need for further calibration and evaluation, particularly relating to these repurposed functions of the score. Overall, the clinical benefit of the score remains clear and its wide usage demonstrates the impact it has on clinical care, patient experience and clinician decision making.

Expert consensus guidance on respiratory physiotherapy and rehabilitation of patients with rib fractures: An international, multidisciplinary e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research supporting optimal respiratory physiotherapy or physical rehabilitation strategies for patients with rib fractures. The aim of this study was to develop key recommendations for the physiotherapy management of patients with rib fractures. METHODS: A three-round modified e-Delphi survey design, using an international Delphi panel including physiotherapy clinicians, researchers and lecturers, physician associates, trauma surgeons, and intensivists, was used in this study. The draft recommendations were developed by the Steering Group, based on available research. Over three rounds, panelists rated their agreement (using a Likert scale) with regard to recommendation for physiotherapists delivering respiratory physiotherapy and physical rehabilitation to patients following rib fractures. Recommendations were retained if they achieved consensus (defined as ≥70% of panelists ≥5/7) at the end of each round. RESULTS: A total of 121 participants from 18 countries registered to participate in the study, with 87 (72%), 77 (64%), and 79 (65%) registrants completing the three rounds, respectively. The final guidance document included 18 respiratory physiotherapy and rehabilitation recommendations, mapped over seven clinical scenarios for patients (1) not requiring mechanical ventilation, (2) requiring mechanical ventilation, (3) with no concurrent fracture of the shoulder girdle complex, (4) with a concurrent fracture of the shoulder girdle complex, (5) with/without concurrent upper limb orthopedic injuries, (6) undergoing surgical stabilization of rib fractures, and (7) at hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: This guidance provides key recommendations for respiratory physiotherapy and physical rehabilitation of patients with rib fractures. It could also be used to inform future research priorities in the field. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Risk factors that predict mortality in patients with blunt chest wall trauma: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years, research has highlighted emerging potential risk factors for poor outcomes following blunt chest wall trauma. The aim was to update a previous systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk factors for mortality in blunt chest wall trauma patients. METHODS: A systematic review of English and non-English articles using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to March 2022 was completed. Broad search terms and inclusion criteria were used. All observational studies were included if they investigated estimates of association between a risk factor and mortality for blunt chest wall trauma patients. Where sufficient data were available, ORs with 95% CIs were calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel method. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: 73 studies were identified which were of variable quality (including 29 from original review). Identified risk factors for mortality following blunt chest wall trauma were: age 65 years or more (OR: 2.11; 95% CI 1.85 to 2.41), three or more rib fractures (OR: 1.96; 95% CI 1.69 to 2.26) and presence of pre-existing disease (OR: 2.86; 95% CI 1.34 to 6.09). Other new risk factors identified were: increasing Injury Severity Score, need for mechanical ventilation, extremes of body mass index and smoking status. Meta-analysis was not possible for these variables due to insufficient studies and high levels of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this updated review suggest that despite a change in demographics of trauma patients and subsequent emerging evidence over the last 10 years, the main risk factors for mortality in patients sustaining blunt chest wall trauma remained largely unchanged. A number of new risk factors however have been reported that need consideration when updating current risk prediction models used in the ED. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021242063. Date registered: 29 March 2021. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/%23recordDetails.

A retrospective validation study of the STUMBL score for emergency department patients with blunt thoracic trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Blunt thoracic trauma (BTT) is a leading cause of emergency department (ED) trauma-related attendance. Risk prediction tools are commonly to predict patients' outcomes and assign them to the most appropriate care setting. The STUMBL score is a prognostic model for BTT, derived and validated in the United Kingdom; items comprising the score are age, number of rib fractures, use of pre-injury anticoagulants, chronic lung disease and oxygen saturation levels. This study's aim was to validate the STUMBL score in an Italian ED. METHODS: This single-centre retrospective validation study was conducted in the ED of Santa Croce and Carle hub hospital in Cuneo, north-western Italy. All patients with an ED attendance for isolated BTT from 2018 to 2021 were included. Exclusion criteria were an age of under eighteen and the presence of any immediately life-threatening lesion. The primary outcome was the development of trauma-related complications, defined by the occurrence of one or more of the following: in-hospital mortality, pulmonary complications (infection, pleural effusion, haemothorax, pneumothorax, pleural empyema), need for intensive care unit admission, hospital length of stay equal to or greater than seven days. The performance of the STUMBL score was analysed in terms of discrimination with the evaluation of the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and with the calibration belt. RESULTS: 745 patients were enroled (median age 64 [25th;75th percentile: 50;78], male/female ratio 1:4, median Charlson comorbidity index 2 [1;4], median STUMBL score 11 [6;17]). 65.2% of patients were discharged home after ED evaluation. 203 patients (27.2%) developed the primary outcome. The STUMBL score was significantly different in patients with complications compared to those without complications (9 [5;13] vs 21 [17;25], p < 0.001). The C index of the score for the primary outcome was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.93), and the result of the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was 9.01 (p = 0.34). STUMBL score = 16 has a sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.85), specificity of 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.90), a positive predictive value of 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.76), and a negative predictive value of 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94). CONCLUSION: In this validation study, the STUMBL score demonstrated excellent discrimination and calibration in predicting the outcome of patients attending the ED with a BTT.

Early exercise in blunt chest wall trauma: protocol for a mixed-methods, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial (ELECT2 trial).

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain and disability are now well-recognised long-term complications of blunt chest wall trauma. Limited research exists regarding therapeutic interventions that can be used to address these complications. A recent feasibility study was completed testing the methods of a definitive trial. This protocol describes the proposed definitive trial, the aim of which is to investigate the impact of an early exercise programme on chronic pain and disability in patients with blunt chest wall trauma. METHODS/ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial will run in four hospitals in Wales and one in England over 12-month recruitment period. Patients will be randomised to either the control group (routine physiotherapy input) or the intervention group (routine physiotherapy input plus a simple exercise programme completed individually by the patient). Baseline measurements including completion of two surveys (Brief Pain Inventory and EuroQol 5-dimensions, 5-Levels) will be obtained on initial assessment. These measures and a client services receipt inventory will be repeated at 3-month postinjury. Analysis of outcomes will focus on rate and severity of chronic pain and disability, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of the programme by patients and clinicians. Qualitative feedback regarding acceptability will be obtained through patient and clinician focus groups. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: London Riverside Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 21/LO/0782) and the Health Research Authority granted approval for the trial in December 2021. Patient recruitment will commence in February 2022. Planned dissemination is through publication in a peer-reviewed Emergency Medicine Journal, presentation at appropriate conferences and to stakeholders at professional meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN65829737; Pre-results.

Nurse and allied health professional experiences and attitudes toward critical care research: A national questionnaire study.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate nurse and allied health professional experiences and attitudes toward critical care research in Wales. Methods: Data were collected related to demographic characteristics, involvement in and understanding of research, perceived influences and attitudes towards research. We calculated means (ranges) for continuous variable and frequencies (proportions) for discrete variables and performed an exploratory factor analysis. Results: Response rate was 55% (n = 575). Most respondents (84%) had participated in research less than five times in the previous 12 months, yet 91% believed research led to improved care patients. Only 32% respondents felt they were encouraged by managers to participate in research. Only 25% respondents had undertaken research training. Few respondents (29%) reported receiving adequate information regarding study progress or results (25%). Linear regression models indicate that a higher level of formal education was associated with a more positive view of research across all attitude factors. Promotion of research by colleagues and recognition/ opportunities for involvement in critical care research, were positively associated with the acceptability and experience of research. Discussion: A number of factors have been identified that could be targeted to improve recruitment to critical care research, including identification of staff to promote research, improved communication of study progress and findings and management encouragement to attend research training. Staff attitudes were positive towards the benefit of research on patient care in Wales.

Use of a modified Delphi process to develop research priorities in major trauma.

PURPOSE: The burden of major trauma within the UK is ever increasing. There is a need to establish research priorities within the field. Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient-centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK. METHODS: A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Pre-hospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus amongst the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions. RESULTS: In phase 1, 201 questions were submitted by 65 stakeholders. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Research priorities across the patient pathway from roadside to rehabilitation were deemed of importance. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centre multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.

Recovery, rehabilitation and follow-up services following critical illness: an updated UK national cross-sectional survey and progress report.

OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively update and survey the current provision of recovery, rehabilitation and follow-up services for adult critical care patients across the UK. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-administered, predominantly closed-question, electronic, online survey. SETTING: Institutions providing adult critical care services identified from national databases. PARTICIPANTS: Multiprofessional critical care clinicians delivering services at each site. RESULTS: Responses from 176 UK hospital sites were included (176/242, 72.7%). Inpatient recovery and follow-up services were present at 127/176 (72.2%) sites, adopting multiple formats of delivery and primarily delivered by nurses (n=115/127, 90.6%). Outpatient services ran at 130 sites (73.9%), predominantly as outpatient clinics. Most services (n=108/130, 83.1%) were co-delivered by two or more healthcare professionals, typically nurse/intensive care unit (ICU) physician (n=29/130, 22.3%) or nurse/ICU physician/physiotherapist (n=19/130, 14.6%) teams. Clinical psychology was most frequently lacking from inpatient or outpatient services. Lack of funding was consistently the primary barrier to service provision, with other barriers including logistical and service prioritisation factors indicating that infrastructure and profile for services remain inadequate. Posthospital discharge physical rehabilitation programmes were relatively few (n=31/176, 17.6%), but peer support services were available in nearly half of responding institutions (n=85/176, 48.3%). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in either increasing, decreasing or reformatting service provision. Future plans for long-term service transformation focus on expansion of current, and establishment of new, outpatient services. CONCLUSION: Overall, these data demonstrate a proliferation of recovery, follow-up and rehabilitation services for critically ill adults in the past decade across the UK, although service gaps remain suggesting further work is required for guideline implementation. Findings can be used to enhance survivorship for critically ill adults, inform policymakers and commissioners, and provide comparative data and experiential insights for clinicians designing models of care in international healthcare jurisdictions.

A survey of current practice in UK emergency department management of patients with blunt chest wall trauma not requiring admission to hospital.

INTRODUCTION: There is no universal agreement or supporting evidence for the content or format of a standardised guidance document for patients with blunt chest wall trauma. The aim of this study is to investigate current UK Emergency Medicine practice of the management of patients with blunt chest wall trauma, who do not require admission to hospital. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study, with mixed quantitative / qualitative analysis methods. A convenience sample of all professions working in the Emergency Departments / Urgent Care Centres in the UK was used. A combination of closed and open-ended questions were included, covering demographics and current practice in the respondent's main place of work. Themes explored included management strategies for safe discharge home, risk prediction and variables considered relevant for inclusion in patient guidance. RESULTS: A total of 113 clinicians responded from all UK trauma networks, including all devolved nations. A total of 20 different risk prediction tools / pathways were reported to be used when assessing whether a patient is safe for discharge home, with over 35 different variables listed by respondents as being important to highlight to patients. Qualitative analysis revealed that a small number of respondents believe patients can be better managed through the improvement of the following; identification of the high-risk patient, initial assessment and current management strategies used in the ED / UCC. DISCUSSION: The wide variation in practice highlighted in this study may be due in part to a lack of national consensus guidelines on how to manage this complex patient group. Further research is needed into whether structured national guidelines for the assessment and management of such patients could potentially lead to an overall improvement in outcomes. Such guidelines should be developed by not only expert clinicians and researchers, but also and more importantly by those service-users who have lived experience of blunt chest wall trauma.