There is a need for implementation and maturation of an inclusive trauma system in every country in Europe, with patient centered care by dedicated surgeons. This process should be initiated by physicians and medical societies, based on the best available evidence, and supported and subsequently funded by the government and healthcare authorities. A systematic approach to organizing all aspects of trauma will result in health gain in terms of quality of care provided, higher survival rates, better functional outcomes and quality of life. In addition, it will provide reliable data for both research, quality improvement and prevention programs. Severely injured patients need surgeons with broad technical and non-technical competencies to provide holistic, inclusive and compassionate care. Here we describe the philosophy of the surgical approach and define the necessary skills for trauma, both surgical and other, to improve outcome of severely injured patients. As surgery is an essential part of trauma care, surgeons play an important role for the optimal treatment of trauma patients throughout and after their hospital stay, including the intensive care unit (ICU). However, in most European countries, it might not be obvious to either the general public, patients or even the physicians that the surgeon must assume this responsibility in the ICU to optimize outcomes. The aim of this paper is to define key elements in terms of trauma systems, trauma-specific surgical skills and active critical care involvement, to organize and optimize trauma care in Europe.

Purpose: European training pathways for surgeons dedicated to treating severely injured and critically ill surgical patients lack a standardized approach and are significantly influenced by diverse organizational and cultural backgrounds. This variation extends into the realm of mentorship, a vital component for the holistic development of surgeons beyond mere technical proficiency. Currently, a comprehensive understanding of the mentorship landscape within the European trauma care (visceral or skeletal) and emergency general surgery (EGS) communities is lacking. This study aims to identify within the current mentorship environment prevalent practices, discern existing gaps, and propose structured interventions to enhance mentorship quality and accessibility led by the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES). Methods: Utilizing a structured survey conceived and promoted by the Young section of the European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (yESTES), we collected and analyzed responses from 123 ESTES members (both surgeons in practice and in training) across 20 European countries. The survey focused on mentorship experiences, challenges faced by early-career and female surgeons, the integration of non-technical skills (NTS) in mentorship, and the perceived role of surgical societies in facilitating mentorship. Results: Findings highlighted a substantial mentorship experience gap, with 74% of respondents engaging in mostly informal mentorship, predominantly centered on surgical training. Notably, mentorship among early-career surgeons and trainees was less reported, uncovering a significant early-career gap. Female surgeons, representing a minority within respondents, reported a disproportionately poorer access to mentorship. Moreover, while respondents recognized the importance of NTS, these were inadequately addressed in current mentorship practices. The current mentorship input of surgical societies, like ESTES, is viewed as insufficient, with a call for structured programs and initiatives such as traveling fellowships and remote mentoring. Conclusions: Our survey underscores critical gaps in the current mentorship landscape for trauma and EGS in Europe, particularly for early-career and female surgeons. A clear need exists for more formalized, inclusive mentorship programs that adequately cover both technical and non-technical skills. ESTES could play a pivotal role in addressing these gaps through structured interventions, fostering a more supportive, inclusive, and well-rounded surgical community.

Background: European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) is the European community of clinicians providing care to the injured and critically ill surgical patient. ESTES has several interlinked missions – (1) the promotion of optimal emergency surgical care through networked advocacy, (2) promulgation of relevant clinical cognitive and technical skills, and (3) the advancement of scientific inquiry that closes knowledge gaps, iteratively improves upon surgical and perioperative practice, and guides decision-making rooted in scientific evidence. Faced with multitudinous opportunities for clinical research, ESTES undertook an exercise to determine member priorities for surgical research in the short-to-medium term; these research priorities were presented to a panel of experts to inform a ‘road map’ narrative review which anchored these research priorities in the contemporary surgical literature. Methods: Individual ESTES members in active emergency surgery practice were polled as a representative sample of end-users and were asked to rank potential areas of future research according to their personal perceptions of priority. Using the modified eDelphi method, an invited panel of ESTES-associated experts in academic emergency surgery then crafted a narrative review highlighting potential research priorities for the Society. Results: Seventy-two responding ESTES members from 23 countries provided feedback to guide the modified eDelphi expert consensus narrative review. Experts then crafted evidence-based mini-reviews highlighting knowledge gaps and areas of interest for future clinical research in emergency surgery: timing of surgery, inter-hospital transfer, diagnostic imaging in emergency surgery, the role of minimally-invasive surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, patient-reported outcome measures, risk-stratification methods, disparities in access to care, geriatric outcomes, data registry and snapshot audit evaluations, emerging technologies interrogation, and the delivery and benchmarking of emergency surgical training. Conclusions: This manuscript presents the priorities for future clinical research in academic emergency surgery as determined by a sample of the membership of ESTES. While the precise basis for prioritization was not evident, it may be anchored in disease prevalence, controversy around aspects of current patient care, or indeed the identification of a knowledge gap. These expert-crafted evidence-based mini-reviews provide useful insights that may guide the direction of future academic emergency surgery research efforts.