Introduction In trauma care, there is a need to increase communication to ensure evidence-informed, best practice care guidelines are easily accessible to all providers to yield continuity of care. Clinical guidance use is one way to address this need while employing a patient-centered team approach.

Methods During year two of the Design for Implementation: The Future of Trauma Research & Clinical Guidance conference series, participants gathered in person and virtually to further develop the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) created during year one. Professional facilitators used the purpose-to-practice (P2P) framework to help structure and guide further consensus building.

Results Seventy in-person and up to 65 virtual attendees participated. Sixty-five responses were collected on the MVP reflection and initial feedback survey. Themes were developed surrounding the pillars of “Purpose,” “Principles,” “Participants,” and “Practices” while looking at the “Structure” for “Sustainability.” The “Purpose” pillar addressed the importance of rigorous, standardized implementation guidance. “Principles” exemplified the necessity of a collaborative approach and included all relevant stakeholders. Similarly, the central theme emphasized by the “Participants” pillar was the inclusiveness of all members of the trauma team. “Practices” dove into the deliverables of the initiative, including up-to-date decision-making support and logistics regarding guidance storage, management, and maintenance. Regarding “Structure,” the most highly ranked idea was developing a steering committee whose purpose would be primarily to prioritize strategic initiatives.

Discussion Clinical guidance needs to be current and readily available to all providers. Next steps of this initiative include developing a steering committee and subcommittees to sustain momentum.

What is already known on this topic – The current state of trauma clinical guidance warrants optimization as clinicians experience implementation challenges, including relevancy to practice setting, inadequate access, and inadequate dissemination. Lack of guidance consensus and applicability highlights a need to equitably provide evidence-based recommendations to all providers to provide quality care for traumatically injured patients.

What this study adds – This study models the use of a formal consensus-generation approach to optimize inclusivity of perspective integration and impact of output.

How this study might affect research, practice or policy – Recommended next steps for P2P consensus generation include the development of a steering committee and subcommittees to continue the work from this conference series to improve collaboration and accessibility of trauma clinical guidance nationally.

TSACO Manuscript Type: Original Research

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: VII

Katheryn Grider, Ashley Moreno, and Lacey LaGrone report funding for the DFI conference was made possible in part by grant 1R13HS028940-01A1 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) paid to the Coalition for National Trauma Research. The AHRQ grant covered part of their costs for attending the conference. Ashley Moreno received financial support from The ReSource, LLC for additional DFI conference support. The Coalition for National Trauma Research has received a grant from the Gates Foundation to support the ongoing and adjacent DFI work. Within the 2025 Design for Implementation (DFI) Authorship Group: Babak Sarani is a consultant for Haemonetics, Belmont, and Acumed, and a speaker for Haemonetics, Acumed, and Medtronic. Deborah M. Stein is a consultant for CSL Behring. Erik Van Eaton is a paid employee and shareowner at TransformativeMed Inc. (a health IT software company). Evert Eriksson is a speaker and educator for J&J and AO. Simon Oczkowski has received travel support from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, and consulting fees from VitalAire and The Brain Trauma Foundation. Kristan Staudenmayer is a consultant for AIMedica and Credence Management Solutions. Jeffrey L. Wells and Kelly Lang each received a stipend for their DFI conference participation as trauma survivors/a caregiver from the ReSource, LLC. Elliott R. Haut reports research funding from AHRQ, PCORI, NIH/NHLBI. Dr. Haut is also the Editor of Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open (TSACO). Simon Oczkowski has received travel support from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, and consulting fees from VitalAire and The Brain Trauma Foundation.

The Design for Implementation: The Future of Trauma Research & Clinical Guidance (DFI) conference series was made possible, in part, by a conference grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1R13HS028940-01A1). The views expressed in written conference materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department of Health and Human Services; nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, American Burn Association, American Trauma Society, Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Chest Wall Injury Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Trauma Nurses, and Trauma Center Association of America provided travel funds for representatives to attend the 2025 DFI meeting. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Trauma Society provided travel funds for patient partners to attend. The Society of Trauma Nurses, Acera Surgical, and Tactuum provided additional financial support. The American College of Surgeons hosted the event in its Chicago offices and provided meeting management, facilities, and audiovisual equipment at no cost to the conference. Publication of this supplement is made possible by Medical Center of the Rockies, UCHealth (Loveland, Colorado, United States).

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:

This study was reviewed by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board, CB F490; COMIRB No: 24-1608 and COMIRB #: 22-0626, and determined exempt from institutional review board review. The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board waived ethical approval for this work.

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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

A limited dataset of deidentified data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.