STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
Objective: To identify differences in practice and behavioural drivers in adult and paediatric surgeons related to the management of splenic injury in children and young people.
Background: Despite the existence of guidelines, there are variations in the care of children with splenic injuries. There are no specific guidelines for the care of young adults, who may be managed according to either paediatric or adult practices. The drivers of variation in trauma management between adult and paediatric surgeons have not been examined through an implementation science lens.
Methods: The COM-B model of behaviour and theoretical domains framework were used to construct a survey which was delivered to a cross-section of adult general surgeons and paediatric surgeons working in public hospitals throughout NSW, Australia. The capability, opportunity, and motivation for management decisions were analysed. Outcome variables were compared between the practitioner groups. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results: Eighty (26.4%) responses met the inclusion criteria. Significant differences between adult and paediatric surgeons were identified in terms of: capability (surgeon training and experience); opportunity (hospital, personnel, and resources); and motivation (comfort with splenic injury care at different ages). In managing splenic injury, pediatric surgeons tended to follow pediatric guidelines while adult surgeons followed adult guidelines, making some adjustments for age. All agreed guidelines had the potential to improve care.
Conclusions: This study identified several behavioural drivers for observed variations in the care of splenic injury in children and young adults. The results indicate that contextually relevant guidelines for managing splenic injury in children and young people across any setting may be needed to reduce disparities in care. These should be underpinned by interventions designed to further address the drivers of surgeon behaviour to optimise uptake. Furthermore, splenic injury care is a clinical indicator of the quality of trauma care more broadly. Addressing variation in its care has the potential to translate to other trauma system improvements.
HIGHLIGHTS Unwarranted variations in splenic injury management have been reported.
This is the first examination of surgeon behaviour in the provision of trauma care through an implementation science lens.
Differences in the capability, opportunity, and motivation of surgeons in providing evidence-based care to children and young adults with splenic injury were found.
Contextually relevant guidelines, underpinned by supporting interventions addressing these behavioural drivers, are needed to reduce disparities in care.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
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:
Ethics committee of University of New South Wales (HC180584) gave 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
Footnotes
susan.adams{at}unsw.edu.au, Andrew.holland{at}health.nsw.gov.au, jbrown{at}georgeinstitute.org.au
Source of support
This study was unfunded
Declaration of interest
The Elsevier Declaration of Interest tool has been used.
⍰ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
