Introduction Representatives of the trauma community have voiced a need for a new approach to developing clinical guidance. In this study, we test the initial acceptability of a proposed 12-step approach that aims to reduce the current clinical guidance timeline from more than 24 months to 24 weeks.

Methods Investigators hypothesized that artificial intelligence (AI) tools could be leveraged to improve and make the process of clinical guidance development more efficient, facilitating AI initial output that could later be reviewed by subject matter experts (SMEs). Ensuring ethical standards and a collaborative design. Following the agile methodology, emphasizing continuous delivery and improvement, and the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) framework, the investigators drafted a 12-step approach to clinical guidance development in 24 weeks. The process starts with the selection of a clinical topic and culminates in a bedside-ready clinical decision tree.

Results The 2025 Design for Implementation: The Future of Trauma Research & Clinical Guidance conference participants were invited to reflect on this new 12-step approach during two breakout sessions. Participants included a broad range of trauma providers, methodologists, patient representatives, technology, and marketing experts. Their recommendations highlighted: 1) multidisciplinary involvement, 2) need for resource-stratified recommendations, and 3) user-friendly features (offline and multilingual access). On a post conference survey (n=56), 64% were confident in AI accelerating the current development process.

Conclusions The current landscape of clinical guidance offers significant opportunities for improvement. Key areas for enhancement include promoting collaboration across multiple disciplines and organizations, developing recommendations that consider resource variations, and utilizing new technologies, such as AI, to expedite the development process. This is crucial because ongoing delays lead to practices lagging behind current evidence. Further research is needed to rigorously test and refine how responsible use of AI can be integrated into expediting evidence integration into clinical guidance.

What is already known on this topic Current clinical guidance typically takes 1-2 years to develop. Moreover, clinical guidance may not be published until a year or more after its completion, long after some recommendations become outdated, contributing to lagged evidence-informed practice.

What this study adds This study shares and tests the initial acceptability of a novel approach that aims to reduce the current clinical guidance timeline from 24 months to 24 weeks. It leverages existing artificial intelligence tools but with the critical input of subject matter experts (SMEs), ensuring ethical standards and collaborative design. SMEs shed light on critical steps and key areas that future clinical guidance needs to consider.

How this study might affect research, practice or policy The current landscape of clinical guidance offers significant opportunities for improvement. Key areas for enhancement include promoting collaboration across multiple disciplines and organizations, developing recommendations that consider resource variations, and utilizing new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to expedite the development process.

Katheryn Grider, Gabriela Zavala Wong, Megan Racey, Diana Sherifali, 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 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, 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 a consultant for 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, deidentified subset of data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.