PRIoritisation of orthopaedic resources and interventions in trauma (PRIORI-T): A modified delphi consensus study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Operative orthopaedic care in resource-constrained systems is frequently limited by theatre time, staffing, peri-operative support, implants, instruments and bed availability. In the absence of an explicit prioritisation framework, decisions about patients awaiting surgery may vary between clinicians and institutions. This modified Delphi study aimed to establish consensus on factors that should structure prioritisation of operative orthopaedic care in South African public hospitals. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted among South African public-sector orthopaedic clinicians. Round 1 used open-ended responses to generate candidate prioritisation factors. Round 2 used a structured 1-9 importance scale to rate patient-specific factors, injury-specific factors, red-flag conditions and potential tie-breakers. Round 3 verified operational definitions, anchor levels and red-flag handling. The scope was confined a priori to admitted patients with stable, isolated orthopaedic injuries; polytrauma, spinal cord injuries and unstable vertebral fractures were excluded because they require individualised, time-critical prioritisation through established emergency pathways. Inclusion consensus was defined as a median score of at least 4 with at least 75% of respondents rating the factor 4-9. Strong inclusion consensus required a median score of at least 7 with at least 75% rating the factor 7-9. Binary consensus required at least 75% agreement. RESULTS: Following exclusion, 65, 55 and 63 responses were analysed in Rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Six patient-specific factors reached inclusion consensus: age, diabetes mellitus, severe cardiac or respiratory disease, premorbid functional status, physiological reserve and current psychosis or severe psychiatric instability. All six injury-specific factors reached inclusion consensus. Soft-tissue status, anatomical site and neurovascular status reached strong inclusion consensus; fracture type or pattern, injury energy and time already waited for surgery reached inclusion consensus. Acute compartment syndrome and threatened vascular status of the relevant limb reached consensus as automatic red-flag overrides. No proposed tie-breaker reached consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a consensus framework for factors influencing the prioritisation of patients awaiting operative orthopaedic care in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) setting. The findings support a preliminary framework, rather than a validated scoring system. Prospective weighting, inter-rater reliability testing and outcome validation are required before implementation as a formal prioritisation tool.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.