Focus Where It Matters: Design and Implementation of a Physiology‐Based Care Pathway for Traumatic Shock

ABSTRACT Objective Traumatic shock lacks a consensus definition, and in blunt‐predominant systems its causes are heterogeneous. Simple physiological parameters remain the most universally available basis for early recognition. We describe the design and staged implementation of a physiology‐based care pathway for traumatic shock and evaluate its implementation through staff experience. Methods Single‐centre quality‐improvement and implementation project at an Australian Level 1 trauma centre, reported per SQUIRE 2.0. The pathway comprised physiology‐based activation (systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg, shock index > 1, prehospital blood or senior clinician concern), structured pre‐arrival preparation, trauma bay and equipment standardisation, task‐based team roles, prioritised life‐saving interventions and senior‐led disposition, supported by simulation and embedded quality improvement. Components were implemented between June and November 2022. Evaluation comprised pre‐intervention (2021) and post‐implementation (2025) staff surveys, summarised as top‐box favourability, with cross‐sectional characterisation of the shocked cohort. Clinical effectiveness was not assessed. Results Of 3667 major trauma patients, 324 (8.8%) met shocked trauma criteria; these patients were younger, more severely injured and had markedly higher mortality (emergency department death 6.8% vs. 0.4%). Favourable ratings of trauma bay equipment and environment rose from approximately one‐quarter to 87.0%. Post‐implementation, staff reported high favourability for timely life‐saving interventions (88.9%), pathway embedding (85.2%) and role confidence (86.5%). Leadership clarity, communication and reliable debriefing did not improve and were identified as ongoing targets. Conclusions A physiology‐based traumatic shock pathway was feasibly implemented and embedded, with high staff‐reported readiness and clear targets for refinement. Effectiveness remains to be established.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Emergency Medicine Australasia
Published
2026-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.70391
Primary Topic
Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Focus Where It Matters: Design and Implementation of a Physiology‐Based Care Pathway for Traumatic Shock

Mark Fitzgerald, Holly Bannon‐Murphy, Joseph Mathew, Jean‐Philippe Miller et al.
Emergency Medicine Australasia
Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
article

Focus Where It Matters: Design and Implementation of a Physiology‐Based Care Pathway for Traumatic Shock

Mark Fitzgerald, Holly Bannon‐Murphy, Joseph Mathew, Jean‐Philippe Miller, Michael Noonan, Simon Hendel, Andrew Underhill, Hector Thomson, Alexa Cass
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective Traumatic shock lacks a consensus definition, and in blunt‐predominant systems its causes are heterogeneous. Simple physiological parameters remain the most universally available basis for early recognition. We describe the design and staged implementation of a physiology‐based care pathway for traumatic shock and evaluate its implementation through staff experience. Methods Single‐centre quality‐improvement and implementation project at an Australian Level 1 trauma centre, reported per SQUIRE 2.0. The pathway comprised physiology‐based activation (systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg, shock index > 1, prehospital blood or senior clinician concern), structured pre‐arrival preparation, trauma bay and equipment standardisation, task‐based team roles, prioritised life‐saving interventions and senior‐led disposition, supported by simulation and embedded quality improvement. Components were implemented between June and November 2022. Evaluation comprised pre‐intervention (2021) and post‐implementation (2025) staff surveys, summarised as top‐box favourability, with cross‐sectional characterisation of the shocked cohort. Clinical effectiveness was not assessed. Results Of 3667 major trauma patients, 324 (8.8%) met shocked trauma criteria; these patients were younger, more severely injured and had markedly higher mortality (emergency department death 6.8% vs. 0.4%). Favourable ratings of trauma bay equipment and environment rose from approximately one‐quarter to 87.0%. Post‐implementation, staff reported high favourability for timely life‐saving interventions (88.9%), pathway embedding (85.2%) and role confidence (86.5%). Leadership clarity, communication and reliable debriefing did not improve and were identified as ongoing targets. Conclusions A physiology‐based traumatic shock pathway was feasibly implemented and embedded, with high staff‐reported readiness and clear targets for refinement. Effectiveness remains to be established.

Emergency Medicine AustralasiaVol. 38(6)
The Alfred Hospital (AU), National Trauma Research Institute (AU), Monash University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon