Background A proper application of the Delphi technique is essential for obtaining valid research results. Medical researchers regularly use Delphi studies, but reports often lack detailed information on methodology and controlled feedback: in the medical literature, papers focusing on Delphi methodology issues are rare. Since the introduction of electronic surveys, details on response times remain scarce. We aim to bridge a number of gaps by providing a real world example covering methodological choices and response times in detail. Methods The objective of our e(lectronic)-Delphi study was to determine minimum standards for emergency departments (EDs) in the Netherlands. We opted for a two-part design with explicit decision rules. Part 1 focused on gathering and defining items; Part 2 addressed the main research question using an online survey tool. A two-person consensus rule was applied throughout: even after consensus on specific items was reached, panellists could reopen the discussion as long as at least two panellists argued similarly. Per round, the number of reminders sent and individual response times were noted. We also recorded the methodological considerations and evaluations made by the research team prior to as well as during the study. Results The study was performed in eight rounds and an additional confirmation round. Response rates were 100% in all rounds, resulting in 100% consensus in Part 1 and 96% consensus in Part 2. Our decision rules proved to be stable and easily applicable. Items with negative advice required more rounds before consensus was reached. Response delays were mostly due to late starts, but once panellists started, they nearly always finished the questionnaire on the same day. Reminders often yielded rapid responses. Intra-individual differences in response time were large, but quick responders remained quick. Conclusions We advise those considering Delphi study to follow the CREDES guideline, consider a two-part design, invest in personal commitment of the panellists, set clear decision rules, use a consistent lay-out and send out your reminders early. Adopting this overall approach may assist researchers in future Delphi studies and may help to improve the quality of Delphi designs in terms of improved rigor and higher response rates.

ObjectiveTo externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury.DesignProspective, multicentre cohort study.SettingThree university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands.ParticipantsConsecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was any intracranial traumatic finding on CT; the secondary outcome was a potential neurosurgical lesion on CT, which was defined as an intracranial traumatic finding on CT that could lead to a neurosurgical intervention or death. The sensitivity, specificity, and clinical usefulness (defined as net proportional benefit, a weighted sum of true positive classifications) of the four CT decision rules. The rules included the CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule, New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for head injury.ResultsFor the primary analysis, only six centres that included patients with and without CT were selected. Of 4557 eligible patients who presented with minor head injury, 3742 (82%) received a CT scan; 384 (8%) had a intracranial traumatic finding on CT, and 74 (2%) had a potential neurosurgical lesion. The sensitivity for any intracranial traumatic finding on CT ranged from 73% (NICE) to 99% (NOC); specificity ranged from 4% (NOC) to 61% (NICE). Sensitivity for a potential neurosurgical lesion ranged between 85% (NICE) and 100% (NOC); specificity from 4% (NOC) to 59% (NICE). Clinical usefulness depended on thresholds for performing CT scanning: the NOC rule was preferable at a low threshold, the NICE rule was preferable at a higher threshold, whereas the CHIP rule was preferable for an intermediate threshold.ConclusionsApplication of the CHIP, NOC, CCHR, or NICE decision rules can lead to a wide variation in CT scanning among patients with minor head injury, resulting in many unnecessary CT scans and some missed intracranial traumatic findings. Until an existing decision rule has been updated, any of the four rules can be used for patients presenting minor head injuries at the emergency department. Use of the CHIP rule is recommended because it leads to a substantial reduction in CT scans while missing few potential neurosurgical lesions.

BackgroundMedical students have been deployed in victim care of several disasters throughout history. They are corner stones in first-line care in recent pandemic planning. Furthermore, every physician and senior medical student is expected to assist in case of disaster situations, but are they educated to do so? Being one of Europe’s densest populated countries with multiple nuclear installations, a large petrochemical industry and also at risk for terrorist attacks, The Netherlands bear some risks for incidents. We evaluated the knowledge on Disaster Medicine in the Dutch medical curriculum. Our hypothesis is that Dutch senior medical students are not prepared at all.MethodsSenior Dutch medical students were invited through their faculty to complete an online survey on Disaster Medicine, training and knowledge. This reported knowledge was tested by a mixed set of 10 theoretical and practical questions.ResultsWith a mean age of 25.5 years and 60 % females, 999 participants completed the survey. Of the participants, 51 % considered that Disaster Medicine should absolutely be taught in the regular medical curriculum and only 2 % felt it as useless; 13 % stated to have some knowledge on disaster medicine. Self-estimated capability to deal with various disaster situations varied from 1.47/10 in nuclear incidents to 3.92/10 in influenza pandemics. Self-estimated knowledge on these incidents is in the same line (1.71/10 for nuclear incidents and 4.27/10 in pandemics). Despite this limited knowledge and confidence, there is a high willingness to respond (ranging from 4.31/10 in Ebola outbreak over 5.21/10 in nuclear incidents to 7.54/10 in pandemics). The case/theoretical mix gave a mean score of 3.71/10 and raised some food for thought. Although a positive attitude, 48 % will place contaminated walking wounded in a waiting room and 53 % would use iodine tablets as first step in nuclear decontamination. Of the participants, 52 % even believes that these tablets protect against external radiation, 41 % thinks that these tablets limit radiation effects more than shielding and 57 % believes that decontamination of chemical victims consists of a specific antidote spray in military cabins.ConclusionsDespite a high willingness to respond, our students are not educated for disaster situations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12245-015-0077-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIn recent years there has been increasing interest shown in the nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt traumatic injury. The growing use of NOM for blunt abdominal organ injury has been made possible because of the progress made in the quality and availability of the multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scan and the development of minimally invasive intervention options such as angioembolization.AimThe purpose of this review is to describe the changes that have been made over the past decades in the management of blunt trauma to the liver, spleen and kidney.ResultsThe management of blunt abdominal injury has changed considerably. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examination has replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage as diagnostic modality in the primary survey. MDCT scanning with intravenous contrast is now the gold standard diagnostic modality in hemodynamically stable patients with intra-abdominal fluid detected with FAST. One of the current discussions in the literature is whether a whole body MDCT survey should be implemented in the primary survey. ConclusionsThe progress in imaging techniques has contributed to NOM being currently the treatment of choice for hemodynamically stable patients. Angioembolization can be used as an adjunct to NOM and has increased the success rate to 95%. However, to date many controversies exist about the optimum patient selection for NOM, the proper role of angioembolization in NOM, the best technique and material to use in angioembolization, and the right follow-up strategy of patients sustaining blunt abdominal injury. Conducting a well-designed prospective clinical trial or a Delphi study would be preferable.

No abstract