QUAL-BYSTANDER 1.0
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Understanding the enablers and barriers of post-collision care: a qualitative study of bystanders, professionals and the injured
IRAS ID
344343
Contact name
Tim Nutbeam
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Plymouth NHS Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, months, days
Research summary
Road traffic injuries are a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. To reduce the impact of these injuries, the Safe System Approach outlines five key pillars: Safer Roads, Safer Vehicles, Safer Road Users, Safer Driving Environments, and Post-Crash Response. While much focus has been placed on preventing collisions, what happens after a crash – the Post-Crash Response – is equally critical to survival and recovery. This response covers everything from recognising that a crash has occurred to emergency treatment, hospital care, and rehabilitation.
One of the most important factors in survival is the chain of survival – a series of steps that, if delivered effectively, can improve the chances of survival and reduce long-term disability. The earliest steps in this chain are often provided by non-clinicians – such as bystanders or professionals who happen to be at the scene, such as police officers, fire and rescue personnel or National Highways traffic officers. However, we do not fully understand their experiences, perceptions, or the barriers they face in providing life-saving care.
This research explores how non-clinicians engage in the early stages of the post-crash response, particularly in early recognition and calling for help, early rescue, and early initial care. The study will also examine inequalities in post-crash treatment, such as why women are more likely to be trapped in vehicles and less likely to receive certain treatments than men.
Using qualitative research methods, this study will build on previous work to better understand how to support non-clinicians in delivering effective care. The findings will help improve guidance, training, and policies to ensure that everyone—regardless of who they are or where they are injured—has the best possible chance of survival and recovery.
REC name
East Midlands - Leicester South Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
25/EM/0131
Date of REC Opinion
9 Jul 2025
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion