Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T16:57:22.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Canadian National EMS Research Agenda: a mixed methods consensus study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

Jan L. Jensen*
Affiliation:
Emergency Health Services, Dartmouth, NS Division of EMS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Blair L. Bigham
Affiliation:
Rescu, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St.Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON York Region Emergency Medical Services, Sharon, ON
Ian E. Blanchard
Affiliation:
Emergency Medical Services, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB Hastings-Quinte EMS, Hastings County, ON
Katie N. Dainty
Affiliation:
Rescu, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St.Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Doug Socha
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
Alix Carter
Affiliation:
Emergency Health Services, Dartmouth, NS Division of EMS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Lawrence H. Brown
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences, James Cook University, Queenland, Australia
Andrew H. Travers
Affiliation:
Emergency Health Services, Dartmouth, NS Division of EMS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Alan M. Craig
Affiliation:
Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences, Toronto, ON
Ryan Brown
Affiliation:
Emergency Health Services, Dartmouth, NS Division of EMS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Laurie J. Morrison
Affiliation:
York Region Emergency Medical Services, Sharon, ON
*
239 Brownlow Avenue, Suite 300, Dartmouth, NS B3B 2B2; jljensen@dal.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:

Research is essential for the development of evidence-based emergency medical services (EMS) systems of care. When resources are scarce and gaps in evidence are large, a national agenda may inform the growth of EMS research in Canada. This mixed methods consensus study explores current barriers and existing strengths within Canadian EMS research, provides recommendations, and suggests EMS topics for future study.

Methods:

Purposeful sampling was employed to invite EMS research stakeholders from various roles across the country. Study phases consisted of 1) baseline interviews of a subsample, 2) roundtable discussion, and 3) an online Delphi survey, in which participants scored each statement for importance. Consensus was defined a priori and met if 80% scored a statement as “important” or “very important.”

Results:

Fifty-three stakeholders participated, representing researchers (37.7%), EMS administrators (24.6%), clinicians/ providers (20.7%), and educators (17.0%). Participation rates were as follows: interviews, 13 of 13 (100%); roundtable, 47 of 53 (89%); survey round 1, 50 of 53 (94%); survey round 2, 47 of 53 (89%); and survey round 3, 40 of 53 (75%). A total of 141 statements were identified as important: 20 barriers, 54 strengths/opportunities, 31 recommendations, and 36 suggested topics for future research. Like statements were synthesized, resulting in barriers (n 5 10), strengths/opportunities (n 5 24), and recommendations (n 5 19), which were categorized as time, opportunities, and funding; education and mentorship; culture of research and collaboration; structure, process, and outcome of research; EMS and paramedic practice; and the future of the EMS Research Agenda.

Conclusions:

Consensus-based key messages from this agenda should be considered when designing, funding, and publishing EMS research and will advance EMS research locally, regionally, and nationally.

Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2013

References

REFERENCES

1.Shah, MN. The formation of the emergency medical services system. Am J Public Health 2006;96:414–23, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.048793.Google Scholar
2.Paramedic Association of Canada. National Occupational Competency Profile. 2011. Available at: http://paramedic.ca/nocp/ (accessed April 13, 2012).Google Scholar
3.Maio, RF, Garrison, HG, Spaite, DW, et al. Emergency medical services outcomes project I (EMSOP I): prioritizing conditions for outcomes research. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33 423–32, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70307-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Callaham, M. Quantifying the scanty science of prehospital emergency care. Ann Emerg Med 1997;30:785–90, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(97)70049-0.Google Scholar
5.Cone, DC. Knowledge translation in the emergency medical services: a research agenda for advancing prehospital care.Acad Emerg Med 2007;14:1052–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Bigham, BL, Aufderheide, TP, Davis, DP, et al. Knowledge translation in emergency medical services: a qualitative survey of barriers to guideline implementation. Resuscitation 2010;81:836–40, doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.012.Google Scholar
7.Division of Emergency Medical Services, Dalhousie University. Canadian Prehospital Evidence Based Protocols Project. Available at: http://emergency.medicine.dal.ca/ehsprotocols/protocols/toc.cfm (accessed April 13, 2012).Google Scholar
8.Myers, JB, Slovis, CM, Eckstein, M, et al. Evidence-based performance measures for emergency medical services systems: a model for expanded EMS benchmarking. A statement developed by the 2007 consortium U.S. metropolitan municipalities’ EMS medical directors. Prehosp Emerg Care 2008;12:141–51, doi:10.1080/10903120801903793.Google Scholar
9.Emergency Medical Services Chiefs of Canada. The future of EMS in Canada: defining the new road ahead 2006. Available at: http://www.emscc.ca/docs/EMS-Strategy-Document.pdf (accessed April 13, 2012).Google Scholar
10.Tippett, V, Clark, M, Woods, S, et al. Towards a national research agenda for the ambulance and pre-hospital sector in Australia. J Emerg Prim Health Care 2003;1(1):8p.Google Scholar
11.Sayre, MR, White, LJ, Brown, LH, et al. National EMS research agenda. Prehosp Emerg Care 2002;6(3 Suppl):S1-43, doi:10.3109/10903120209102681.Google Scholar
12.Sayre, MR, White, LJ, Brown, LH, et al. The national EMS research strategic plan. Prehosp Emerg Care 2005;9:255–66, doi:10.1080/10903120590962238.Google Scholar
13.Sayre, MR, White, LJ, Brown, LH, et al. National EMS research agenda: proceedings of the Implementation Symposium. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:1100–8, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00582.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Sayre, MR, White, LJ, Brown, LH, et al. The National EMS Research Agenda executive summary. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40:636–43, doi:10.1067/mem.2002.129241.Google Scholar
15.Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System. Emergency medical services: at the crossroads. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2007.Google Scholar
16.National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians. NREMT EMS Research Fellowship. The Registry 2004; (Spring):3.Google Scholar
17.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Pilot of prehospital evidence-based guideline implementation process. 2011. Available at: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2ccc109fbd8e55733d6256a0adc5e6f7&tab=core&_cview=0 (accessed April 13, 2012).Google Scholar
18.Lerner, EB, Mosesso, V Jr, Zak, C. Implementation of research in the out-of-hospital setting. Prehosp Emerg Care 2002;6(2 Suppl):S24, S27-24, S27.Google Scholar
19.Snooks, H, Evans, A, Wells, B, et al. What are the highest priorities for research in emergency prehospital care? Emerg Med J 2009;26:549–50, doi:10.1136/emj.2008.065862.Google Scholar
20.Centre for Prehospital Research, University of Limerick. A national prehospital research strategy. 2008. Available at: http://www2.ul.ie/pdf/358997750.pdf (accessed April 13, 2012).Google Scholar
21.Jensen, JL, Blanchard, IE, Bigham, BL, et al. Methodology for the development of a Canadian National EMS research agenda. BMC Emerg Med 2011;11:15, doi:10.1186/1471-227X-11-15.Google Scholar
22.Keeney, S, Hasson, F, McKenna, H. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. West Sussex (UK): John Wiley and Sons; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Powell, C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 2003;41:376–82, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Beattie, E, Mackaway-Jones, K. A Delphi study to identify performance indicators for emergency medicine. Emerg Med J 2004;21:4750, doi:10.1136/emj.2003.001123.Google Scholar
25.Hasson, F, Keeney, S, McKenna, H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000;32:1008–15.Google Scholar
26.Boulkedid, R, Abdoul, H, Loustau, M, et al. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e20476, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020476.Google Scholar
27.Keeney, S, Hasson, F, McKenna, H. Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J Adv Nurs 2006;53:205–12, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03716.x.Google Scholar
28.Bogdan, RC, Biklen, SK. Qualitative research in education: an introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2006.Google Scholar
29.Farmer, T, Robinson, K, Elliott, SJ, et al. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res 2006;16:377–94, doi:10.1177/1049732305285708.Google Scholar
30.O’Cathain, A, Murphy, E, Nicholl, J. Research methods & reporting: three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ 2010;341:1147–50, doi:10.1136/bmj.c4587.Google Scholar