Unique Characteristics of Emergency Care Research: Scope, Populations, and Infrastructure

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program and the 2006 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report on the future of emergency care highlight the need for coordinated emergency care research (ECR) to improve the outcomes of acutely ill or injured patients. In response, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) sponsored the Emergency Care Research Network (ECRN) Conference in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2008. The conference objectives were to identify the unique nature of ECR and the infrastructure needed to support ECR networks and to understand the optimal role of emergency medicine (EM) and other acute care specialties in research networks. Prior to the conference, participants responded to questions addressing the relevant issues that would form the basis of breakout session discussions; two of these breakout questions are summarized in this report: 1) what makes EM research unique? and 2) what are the critical components needed to establish and maintain networked ECR? Emergency care research was defined as “the systematic examination of patient care that is expected to be continuously available to diverse populations presenting with undifferentiated symptoms of acute illness, or acutely decompensated chronic illness, and whose outcomes depend on timely diagnosis and treatment.” The chain of ECR may extend beyond the physical emergency department (ED) in both place and time and integrate prehospital care, as well as short‐ and long‐term outcome determination. ECR may extend beyond individual patients and have as the focus of investigation the actual system of emergency care delivery itself and its effects on the community with respect to access to care, use of resources, and cost. Infrastructure determinants of research network success identified by conference participants included multidisciplinary collaboration, accurate long‐term outcome determination, novel information technology, intellectual infrastructure, and wider network relationships that extend beyond the ED.     

Evaluating Emergency Care Research Networks: What Are the Right Metrics?

Research networks can enable the inclusion of large, diverse patient populations in different settings. However, the optimal measures of a research network's failure or success are not well defined or standardized. To define a framework for metrics used to measure the performance and effectiveness of emergency care research networks (ECRN), a conference for emergency care investigators, funding agencies, patient advocacy groups, and other stakeholders was held and yielded the following major recommendations: 1) ECRN metrics should be measurable, explicitly defined, and customizable for the multiple stakeholders involved and 2) continuing to develop and institute metrics to evaluate ECRNs will be critical for their accountability and sustainability.     

Gender‐specific Issues in Traumatic Injury and Resuscitation: Consensus‐based Recommendations for Future Research

Traumatic injury remains an unacceptably high contributor to morbidity and mortality rates across the United States. Gender‐specific research in trauma and emergency resuscitation has become a rising priority. In concert with the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference “Gender‐specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes,” a consensus‐building group consisting of experts in emergency medicine, critical care, traumatology, anesthesiology, and public health convened to generate research recommendations and priority questions to be answered and thus move the field forward. Nominal group technique was used for the consensus‐building process and a combination of face‐to‐face meetings, monthly conference calls, e‐mail discussions, and preconference surveys were used to refine the research questions. The resulting research agenda focuses on opportunities to improve patient outcomes by expanding research in sex‐ and gender‐specific emergency care in the field of traumatic injury and resuscitation.     

The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN): Rationale,Development, and First Steps*

Since its formal recognition as a medical specialty, the field of pediatric emergency medicine has made substantial advances with respect to its scope and sophistication. These advances have occurred in clinical practice as well as in the research base to improve clinical practice. There remain, however, many areas in emergency medical services for children (EMSC), in the out‐of‐hospital as well as the emergency department (ED) and hospital settings, that suffer from a lack of data to guide practice. In an effort to expand the quality and quantity of research in pediatric emergency care, the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) was created in October 2001. PECARN is the first federally funded national network for research in EMSC. PECARN is the result of Cooperative Agreement grants funded through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) with the purpose of developing an infrastructure capable of overcoming inherent barriers to pediatric EMSC research. Among these recognized barriers are low incidence rates of serious pediatric emergency events, the need for large numbers of children from varied backgrounds to achieve broadly representative study samples, lack of an infrastructure to test the efficacy of pediatric emergency care, and the need for a mechanism to translate study results into clinical practice. PECARN will serve as a national platform for collaborative research involving the continuum of care within the EMSC system, including out‐of‐hospital care, patient transport, ED and in‐hospital care, and rehabilitation. This article describes the history of EMSC, the need for a national collaborative research network in EMSC, the organization and development of PECARN, and the work plan for the Network.     

Emergency Medicine Research Directors and Research Programs: Characteristics and Factors Associated with Productivity

Background: Periodic surveys of research directors (RDs) in emergency medicine (EM) are useful to assess the specialty's development and evolution of the RD role. Objectives: To assess associations between characteristics and research productivity of RDs and EM programs. Methods: A survey of EM RDs was developed using the nominal group technique and pilot tested. RDs or surrogate respondents at programs certified by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were contacted by e‐mail in early 2005. The survey assessed programs' research infrastructure and productivity, as well as RD characteristics, responsibilities, and career satisfaction. Three measures of research productivity were empirically defined: research publications, grant awards, and grant revenue. Results: Responses were received from 86% of 123 EM programs. Productivity was associated with the presence of nonclinical faculty, dedicated research coordinators, and reduced clinical hours for research faculty. Programs with an RD did not have greater research productivity, using any measure, than those without an RD. The majority of RDs cited pursuing their own studies, obtaining funding, research mentoring, and research administration to be major responsibilities. The majority characterized internal research funding, grant development support, and support from other faculty as inadequate. Most RDs are satisfied with their careers and expect to remain in the position for three or more years. Conclusions: Research productivity of EM residency programs is associated with the presence of dedicated research faculty and staff and with reduced clinical demands for research faculty. Despite perceiving deficiencies in important resources, most RDs are professionally satisfied.     

Tools for the Measurement of Outcome after Minor Head Injury in Children: Summary from the Ambulatory Pediatric Association/EMSC Outcomes Research Conference

This article summarizes discussions held during a conference on outcomes research in emergency medical services for children. It provides detailed information on existing outcome measures for pediatric minor head injury. Benefits and/or limitations in their applicability for use in pediatric emergency medicine and pediatric minor head injury research are highlighted.     

Emergency Department Services for Patients with Alcohol Problems: Research Directions

This report summarizes recommendations on research directions developed from the conference "Alcohol Problems among Emergency Department Patients: Research on Identification and Intervention." The conference was developed in order to evaluate the existing state of the art research on emergency department interventions for alcohol problems, and offer further recommendations for research.     

Facilitating Emergency Care Research Networks: Integration into the Clinical Translational and Science Award (CTSA) Infrastructure

Emergency care research (ECR) does not fit neatly into the traditional National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding model, because emergency research involves undifferentiated disease presentations involving multiple disciplines and time-sensitive interventions. A task force of emergency care researchers and other stakeholders was convened to discuss the present and future state of clinical research networks. Integration of ECR with the Clinical Translational and Science Award (CTSA) program through a multidisciplinary emergency care research network (ECRN) would obviate the duplication of research efforts by disease-specific or institute-specific multicenter networks and reduce startup and maintenance costs. Strategies to enhance integration must include the training of emergency physician investigators in biostatistical and epidemiologic methods, as well as educating collaborative investigators in emergency care–related methodologies. Thus, an ECRN would be of great benefit to CTSA awardees and applicants and should be considered a priority.     

Supporting Emergency Medicine Research: Developing the Infrastructure

The long-term goals of developing research within the specialty of emergency medicine (EM) include the following: 1) to continue to improve the quality and quantity of EM research in order to ultimately improve emergency patient care; 2) to maximize the research potential of emergency health care professionals in order to develop new emergency research talent and enthusiasm; and 3) to establish the academic research credentials of the specialty of EM in order to become competitive for federal research funding, and further improve emergency patient care. This article addresses the process by which the infrastructure for EM research can be developed at academic medical centers and provides recommendations. The roles of the academic chair, research director, senior researcher, and departmental faculty are discussed.     

Public Health in the Emergency Department: Surveillance, Screening, and Intervention—Funding and Sustainability

This article summarizes the work and discussions of the funding and sustainability work group at the 2009 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference “Public Health in the ED: Surveillance, Screening, and Intervention.” The funding and sustainability session participants were asked to address the following overarching question: “What are the opportunities and what is needed to encourage academic emergency medicine (EM) to take advantage of the opportunities for funding available for public health research initiatives and build stronger academic programs focusing on public health within EM?” Prior to the session, members of the group reviewed research funding for EM in public health, as well as the priorities of federal agencies and foundations. Recommendations for actions by EM summarize the findings of workshop.     

2022 consensus conference on diversity,equity, and inclusion: Developing an emergency medicine research agenda for addressing racism through health care research

Racism in emergency medicine (EM) health care research is pervasive but often underrecognized. To understand the current state of research on racism in EM health care research, we developed a consensus working group on this topic, which concluded a year of work with a consensus-building session as part of the overall Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) consensus conference on diversity, equity, and inclusion: “Developing a Research Agenda for Addressing Racism in Emergency Medicine,” held on May 10, 2022. In this article, we report the development, details of preconference methods and preliminary results, and the final consensus of the Healthcare Research Working Group. Preconference work based on literature review and expert opinion identified 13 potential priority research questions that were refined through an iterative process to a list of 10. During the conference, the subgroup used consensus methodology and a “consensus dollar” (contingent valuation) approach to prioritize research questions. The subgroup identified three research gaps: remedies for racial bias and systematic racism, biases and heuristics in clinical care, and racism in study design, and we derived a list of six high-priority research questions for our specialty.     

Communicating with Communities about Emergency Research

The challenge of effectively communicating with communities about research is particularly salient for investigators who are conducting emergency research with an exception from informed consent. The authors discuss the ethical basis for the community consultation requirement and describe the nature and extent of the consultative process required to achieve these ethical purposes. The findings of the consensus conference are summarized as follows. 1) The requirements for community consultation and public disclosure for exception from informed consent studies serve important ethical purposes and should be retained. 2) Community consultation allows investigators and institutional review boards to obtain input from the community regarding planned research. The process serves to facilitate understanding, promote trust, ensure justice, and protect research participants. 3) Community consultation is a process that requires active participation by community members; however, it does not require their approval, consent, or consensus. The practical challenges involved in conducting meaningful community consultation are also discussed: defining the community and its appropriate representatives, methods to actively engage the community, the lack of uniformity among institutional review boards in required community consultation activities, and the lack of measures to evaluate the adequacy and appropriateness of community consultation. The recommendations of the consensus conference regarding future research about community consultation are summarized. Priorities include identifying best practices; defining effectiveness and developing measures to evaluate community consultation; evaluating alternative models and potential infrastructures to facilitate, conduct, and/or oversee effective community consultation processes; and developing educational modules for community members to empower their active participation in discussions about emergency research in their communities.     

Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT): first steps towards the development of an Australian and New Zealand research network

Paediatric emergency research is hampered by a number of barriers that can be overcome by a multicentre approach. In 2004, an Australia and New Zealand-based paediatric emergency research network was formed, the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT). The founding sites include all major tertiary children's hospital EDs in Australia and New Zealand and a major mixed ED in Australia. PREDICT aims to provide leadership and infrastructure for multicentre research at the highest standard, facilitate collaboration between institutions, health-care providers and researchers and ultimately improve patient outcome. Initial network-wide projects have been determined. The present article describes the development of the network, its structure and future goals.     

Continuing the transformation: charting the path for the future delivery of Veteran emergency care

Important changes in the delivery of Veteran emergency care in the early 2000s in the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) emergency departments and urgent care clinics substantially elevated the role of emergency medicine (EM) in Veteran health care. Focused on enhancing the quality of care, emergency care visits in both VA and non-VA (community) care locations have nearly doubled from the 1980s to more than 3 million visits in Fiscal Year 2022. Recognizing the need to plan for continued growth and the opportunity to address key research priorities, the VA Office of Emergency Medicine, together with the VA Health Services Research and Development Service, collaborated to convene a State of the Art Conference on Veteran Emergency Medicine (SAVE) in the winter of 2022. The goal of this conference was to identify research gaps and priorities for implementation of policies for three priority groups: geriatric Veterans, Veterans with mental health and substance use complaints, and Veterans presenting to non-VA (community) emergency care sites. In this article we discuss the rationale for the SAVE conference including a brief history of VA EM and the planning process and conclude with next steps for findings from the conference.     

Alignment of Emergency Medicine Research Efforts with Clinical and Translational Science Awards

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) represent a major new funding pathway for health science investigators seeking National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds. This new pathway provides institutional-level support for clinical and translational research and is not tied to one organ system or disease process, fitting well with emergency medicine (EM) research needs. These awards open unique opportunities for advancing EM research. The CTSA mechanism provides institutional support from the NIH to promote both clinical and translational science. Of the 60 expected awards, 38 sites are currently funded. EM investigators can benefit the institutions applying for these awards and simultaneously gain from involvement. Some opportunities for participation provided by the CTSA include research training programs, joining multidisciplinary research teams, seed grant funding, and use of the CTSA-developed research infrastructure. Involvement of EM can benefit institutions by enhancing acute care research collaboration both within and among institutions. Emergency medicine researchers at institutions either planning to submit a CTSA application or with funded CTSA grants are encouraged to become actively involved in CTSA-related research programs.     

How Patients and Visitors to an Urban Emergency Department View Clinical Research

OBJECTIVES: To assess views about clinical research, drawing current opinion from an urban, largely minority population within the authors' emergency department (ED). METHODS: Two focus groups of ED patients and visitors were conducted. These data informed the development of a 27-item interview examining views about clinical research and knowledge of human subjects protections. RESULTS: The authors interviewed a total of 172 patients and visitors within an adult ED. Study participants reflected the diverse patient population: 38% were African American, 32% Hispanic, 25% white, and 6% other. When asked why one might choose to participate in medical research, 46% said to benefit mankind, 26% said to improve one's own health, 18% cited access to medical care, 17% said financial incentive, and 11% said curiosity. When asked why one might decline research participation, 38% cited fear, 24% cited lack of interest in research, 10% cited medical mistrust, 9% indicated not wanting to feel like a "guinea pig," 6% indicated lack of time, and 5% suggested privacy concerns. When asked about the meaning of informed consent, 32% did not know. Many respondents (26%) were unaware that they could withdraw from a study. Although the majority (96%) endorsed a statement about the potential benefit of research for themselves or their loved ones, a sizable proportion of respondents (49%) equated research subjects to "human guinea pigs." CONCLUSIONS: Although many individuals tend to view clinical research favorably, a level of medical mistrust exists. The concerns about human experimentation and the limited understanding of human subject protections underscore the need to improve informed consent.     

Smoking Cessation Counseling by Emergency Physicians: Opinions, Knowledge, and Training Needs

Objectives: To determine: 1) the extent of emergency physicians' (EPs') training in smoking cessation counseling; 2) their understanding of counseling and pharmacologic treatment techniques; 3) their current practices in screening, counseling, and referring patients who smoke; and 4) perceived barriers to routine smoking cessation counseling in emergency medical practice.
Methods: A 26-item questionnaire addressing the above issues was mailed to all 256 members of the Colorado Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
Results: Completed questionnaires were returned by 196 physicians (77% response rate). The majority of respondents were men (80%), practiced in urban settings (87%), and were board-certified in emergency medicine (82%). Most EPs lacked formal smoking cessation training (55%) and felt poorly prepared to counsel patients about smoking cessation (65%). A minority (27%) of the physicians reported routinely asking patients to quit smoking. The physicians with formal smoking cessation training were more likely to counsel and refer patients routinely (34% vs 20%, p = 0.03). The physicians cited the following barriers to routine smoking cessation counseling: a lack of time; a perception that patients are not interested; a belief that the ED setting is inappropriate for counseling; and a sense that counseling is ineffective. Lack of reimbursement was cited by only 13% of the respondents. The physicians who had formal smoking cessation training perceived fewer barriers to ED-based counseling.
Conclusions: Emergency physicians have received little training in smoking cessation and perceive many barriers to ED-based smoking cessation interventions. Not surprisingly, they infrequently take action to encourage or assist their patients to quit smoking.     

Confronting the Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research: A Consensus Opinion

An objective of the 2005 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, “Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research,” was to identify if consensus exists regarding application of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Final Rule allowing an exception from informed consent in resuscitation research. At the start of the consensus conference, 49 attendees participated in a survey containing three sections: 1) demographic questions characterizing respondents, 2) questions regarding application of the FDA Final Rule, and 3) complexities associated with seeking informed consent in an emergency setting. Consensus analysis was used to determine if a formal consensus was reached, relying on a Bayesian posterior probability of 0.99 to consider survey responses a “consensus.” Respondents demonstrated consensus regarding the need to further refine and standardize application of the FDA Final Rule in resuscitation research. However, participants agreed that current regulations provide adequate and appropriate protection to safeguard patients. Complexities associated with seeking informed consent in emergency departments were prevalent among most institutions represented at the conference. There was general agreement that current efforts to safeguard human subjects are effective, but participants agreed that refinements to and standardization of the FDA Final Rule would facilitate resuscitation research and enhance patient safety.     

Establishing the Scope and Methodological Approach to Out-of-hospital Outcomes and Effectiveness Research

Outcomes research offers out-of-hospital medicine a valuable methodology for studying the effectiveness of services provided in the out-of hospital setting. A clear understanding of the history and constructs of outcomes research is necessary for its integration into emergency medical services research. This report describes the conceptual framework of outcomes research and key methodological considerations for the successful implementation of out-of-hospital outcomes research. Illustrations of the specific applications of outcomes research and implications to existing methodologies are given, as well as suggestions for improved interdisciplinary research.