Lethargic and obey to inputs. Which of the below is not assessed first? Respiration Circulation Mechanism of injury Peripheral control Neurological situation 21. Systolic pressure < 0.001). Group I showed significantly higher level III confidence when compared with other groups (p = 0.02), and the distribution of different levels of self-confidence was similar between the other doctor groups. Injury-related mortality has classically been shown to present a trimodal distribution, known as immediate (seconds to minutes after the injury), early (minutes to hours), and late (days to weeks). The respondents were also asked to identify in which period the trauma teams could be most effective in decreasing preventable deaths. Overall, 271 (59%) of respondents chose the first period in which injury prevention policies are deemed most effective (p < 0.001). Second period was selected by 51 (28%), 13 (17.6%), 23 (13%), and 4 (12%) doctors in groups I to IV respectively (p > 0.05). Although 435 (91%) of respondents stated that there were not any trauma databases in their current or past working hospitals, 461 (97%) agreed or strongly agreed for the necessity of a national and/or institutional database. Aytekin Ünlü et al 56 Particular importance was given to the triage knowledge in the survey. Triage color codes from Simple Triage and Rapid Transport (START) system was given as a wrong statement (yellows first, reds second) and the rest of the four choices were right statements about triage concept. In groups I to IV, 148 (85%), 53 (75%), 116 (78%), and 24 (75%) doctors answered incorrectly; there was no difference in the percentage of incorrect answers among the four groups (p = 0.12). The respondents were also asked the appropriate triage system in a multiple casualty situation. Interestingly, a significantly higher percentage of Group I doctors (40%) chose START as the right answer, when compared with the other groups (p = 0.003). Additionally, three different casualty scenarios were given in a different question. Besides the physical findings of multiple traumas, Glasgow Coma Scale, heart rate, capillary refill, and respiratory rate data were given for each scenario, and the respondents were asked to prioritize the casualties for early evacuation. One hundred sixty-one (88%), 68 (92%), 162 (88%), and 32 (94%) medical doctors in groups I to IV failed to choose the right order of prioritization respectively (χ2 = 2.105, p = 0.551; Table 2). Table 2: Answers to trauma knowledge questions Triage knowledge General practitioner Surgical residents Surgeons Academic surgical specialties Total n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Color codes1 Wrong answer p = 0.178 Only 54% of the respondents correctly identified the components of the primary survey of a casualty. Respondents were also given the features of Class III hemorrhagic shock and asked to estimate the percentage of blood loss. Only 36 (20%) in Group I, 22 (30%) in Group II, 40 (22%) in Group III, and 7 (21%) in Group V were able to correctly estimate the percentage of blood loss (χ2 = 3.252, p = 0.354; Table 2). We have also investigated the current knowledge about the use of blood, blood components, and crystalloids in a blunt trauma victim with hemorrhagic shock. Interestingly, 185 (39%) respondents in all groups recognized using warm fresh whole blood as their first choice. However, there was no statistically significant difference among the groups (Table 3). Another question involved tracheal deviation, low arterial oxygen saturation, hypotension, asymmetry of respiratory sounds, and paradoxical chest movements as multiple choices and the respondents were asked to choose the most critical finding in a trauma patient. The rate of choosing tracheal deviation as the right answer was 67 (37%), 21 (29%), 46 (25%), and 17 (50%) in groups I to IV respectively (χ2 = 17.426, p = 0.134; Table 4). Trauma Survey of 476 Doctors: Now We know What We Do not know PAJT Panamerican Journal of Trauma, Critical Care & Emergency Surgery, January-April 2018;7(1):52-60 57 DISCUSSION Lessons learned at times of war have been adopted by the civilian trauma systems and have led to dramatic advances in trauma care in many countries.5 However, trauma care including the development of trauma centers within integrated trauma systems is at its infancy in Turkey. Currently, emergency medicine specialists provide the initial assessment and medical care of trauma patients, which is followed by consultations with the surgical disciplines for definitive treatment.5 In contrast to the Turkish civilian emergency system, there are several combat support hospitals in the military field that are specifically designed to provide combat trauma care.4 The only accredited trauma training program in Turkey is the War Surgery Program as a subspecialty under the General Surgery Department in Gulhane Training and Research Hospital. Surgical Critical Care training is not distinct from trauma, and trauma is only one section of the whole general surgery program. However, the trauma teams are comprised of large number of surgeons of different specialties with trauma experience from low trauma volume hospitals. Accordingly, Izmir Trauma Group8 reported in their field guide that a trauma team whose sole mission is to provide trauma care did not exist in our country. Authors of that study frequently refer to the American trauma system