Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Jan L. Jensen (a1) (a2), Blair L. Bigham (a3) (a4), Ian E. Blanchard (a5) (a6), Katie N. Dainty (a3), Doug Socha (a7), Alix Carter (a1) (a2), Lawrence H. Brown (a8), Andrew H. Travers (a1) (a2), Alan M. Craig (a9), Ryan Brown (a1) (a2) and Laurie J. Morrison (a4)...

Abstract

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.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Copyright

Corresponding author

239 Brownlow Avenue, Suite 300, Dartmouth, NS B3B 2B2; jljensen@dal.ca

References

Hide All
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.
2.Paramedic Association of Canada. National Occupational Competency Profile. 2011. Available at: http://paramedic.ca/nocp/ (accessed April 13, 2012).
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.
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.
5.Cone, DC. Knowledge translation in the emergency medical services: a research agenda for advancing prehospital care.Acad Emerg Med 2007;14:1052–7.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
16.National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians. NREMT EMS Research Fellowship. The Registry 2004; (Spring):3.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
22.Keeney, S, Hasson, F, McKenna, H. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. West Sussex (UK): John Wiley and Sons; 2011.
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.
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.
25.Hasson, F, Keeney, S, McKenna, H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000;32:1008–15.
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.
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.
28.Bogdan, RC, Biklen, SK. Qualitative research in education: an introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2006.
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.
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.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed