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.     

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.     

Social Network Analysis to Assess the Impact of the CTSA on Biomedical Research Grant Collaboration

Success of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program implicitly demands team science efforts and well‐orchestrated collaboration across the translational silos (T1–T4). Networks have proven to be useful abstractions of research collaborations. Networks provide novel system‐level insights and exhibit marked changes in response to external interventions, making them potential evaluation tools that complement more traditional approaches. This study is part of our ongoing efforts to assess the impact of the CTSA on Biomedical Research Grant Collaboration (BRGC). Collaborative research grants are a complex undertaking and an outcome of sustained interaction among researchers. In this report, BRGC networks representing collaborations among CTSA‐affiliated investigators constructed from grants management system data at the University of Kentucky across a period of six years (2007–2012) corresponding to pre‐ and post‐CTSA are investigated. Overlapping community structure detection algorithms, in conjunction with surrogate testing, revealed the presence of intricate research communities rejecting random graphs as generative mechanisms. The deviation from randomness was especially pronounced post‐CTSA, reflecting an increasing trend in collaborations and team‐science efforts potentially as a result of CTSA. Intercommunity cross talk was especially pronounced post‐CTSA.     

The CTSA Mentored Career Development Program: Supporting the Careers of Child Health Investigators

Training translational scientists is a priority of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium. Objectives: 1) Describe the landscape of CTSA Mentored Research Career Development Awards (CDA) and 2) evaluate participation and outcomes of child health investigators in these programs. Design: Survey of the CTSA Child Health Oversight Committee (CC‐CHOC) and review of nonresponders'' CTSA Websites. Results: Thirty‐two of 53 CC‐CHOC members (60%) responded and all nonresponder Websites were reviewed. Institutions supported 1,166 CDA positions from 2006 to 2011, with 134 awarded to child health investigators (11.5%). Respondents reported a mean of 29.8 KL2 positions (95% CI 17.5–42.2) during their award period, with a mean of 2.8 (95% CI 1.8–3.8) awarded to child health investigators. The proportion of child health awardees varied from 0% to 50% across institutions. We identified 45 subsequent National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards to the 134 child health investigators (34%). Conclusions: The CTSA program contributes substantially to training the next generation of translational investigators. One‐third of child health investigators obtained subsequent NIH awards in the short follow‐up period demonstrating success of the CTSA CDA programs. Child health investigators are represented variably across the consortium. Pediatric institutions can partner with the CTSA program to further support training child health investigators.     

Conceptual Models of Health Behavior: Research in the Emergency Care Settings

This article provides recommendations for incorporating conceptual models of health behavior change into research conducted in emergency care settings. The authors drafted a set of preliminary recommendations, which were reviewed and discussed by a panel of experienced investigators attending the 2009 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference. The original recommendations were expanded and refined based on their input. This article reports the final recommendations. Three recommendations were made: 1) research conducted in emergency care settings that focuses on health behaviors should be grounded in formal conceptual models, 2) investigators should clearly operationalize their outcomes of interest, and 3) expected relations between theoretical constructs and outcomes should be made explicit prior to initiating a study. A priori hypothesis generation grounded in conceptual models of health behavior, followed by empirical validation of these hypotheses, is needed to improve preventive and public health–related interventions in emergency care settings.     

The Critical Need for Academic Health Centers to Assess the Training,Support, and Career Development Requirements of Clinical Research Coordinators: Recommendations from the Clinical and Translational Science Award Research Coordinator Taskforce

Clinical Research Coordinators (CRCs) are a vital component of the clinical research enterprise providing a pivotal role in human subject protection through the numerous activities and responsibilities assigned to them. In 2006, the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Research resources (NCRR) implemented the Clinical and Translational Science Awards program (CTSA) to advance biomedical research. As a part of this endeavor, many workgroups were formed among the Consortium to support translational research. The Research Coordinator Taskforce was created as part of the Regulatory Knowledge group of the Clinical Research Innovation Key Function Committee, and focuses on enhancing CTSA capabilities to provide support and training for CRCs. In the spring of 2008, this taskforce conducted two surveys of the then 24 CTSA Consortium members to better understand the current expectations and responsibilities of research coordinators in addition to the mechanism for providing education, training, and support in order for CRCs to successfully meet the study responsibilities placed upon them. The results of these surveys are summarized in this article and provide context to the recommendations of the Research Coordinator Taskforce for institutional considerations, approaches, and best practices for providing education, training, and support the expanding role of CRCs in fulfilling their responsibilities delegated to them by investigators. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume 5: 470–475     

Research directions in emergency medicine

The goal of emergency medicine is to improve health while preventing and treating disease and illness in patients seeking emergency medical care. Improvements in emergency medical care and the delivery of this care can be achieved through credible and meaningful research efforts. Improved delivery of emergency medical care through research requires careful planning and the wise use of limited resources. To achieve this goal, emergency medicine must provide appropriate training of young investigators and attract support for their work. Promotion of multidisciplinary research teams will help the specialty fulfill its goals. The result will be the improvement of emergency medical care which will benefit not only the patients emergency physicians serve but also, ultimately, the nation's health.     

Research directions in emergency medicine: 21–22 January 1995

The goal of emergency medicine is to improve health while preventing and treating disease and illness in patients seeking emergency medical care. Improvements in emergency medical care and the delivery of this care can be achieved through credible and meaningful research efforts. Improved delivery of emergency medical care through research requires careful planning and the wise use of limited resources. To achieve this goal, emergency medicine must provide appropriate training of young investigators and attract support for their work. Promotion of multidisciplinary research teams will help the specialty fulfill its goals. The result will be the improvement of emergency medical care, which will benefit not only the patients emergency physicians serve but also, ultimately, the nation's health.     

Defining and Measuring Successful Emergency Care Networks: A Research Agenda

The demands on emergency services have grown relentlessly, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has asserted the need for “regionalized, coordinated, and accountable emergency care systems throughout the country.” There are large gaps in the evidence base needed to fix the problem of how emergency care is organized and delivered, and science is urgently needed to define and measure success in the emerging network of emergency care. In 2010, Academic Emergency Medicine convened a consensus conference entitled “Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care.” This article is a product of the conference breakout session on “Defining and Measuring Successful Networks”; it explores the concept of integrated emergency care delivery and prioritizes a research agenda for how to best define and measure successful networks of emergency care. The authors discuss five key areas: 1) the fundamental metrics that are needed to measure networks across time-sensitive and non–time-sensitive conditions; 2) how networks can be scalable and nimble and can be creative in terms of best practices; 3) the potential unintended consequences of networks of emergency care; 4) the development of large-scale, yet feasible, network data systems; and 5) the linkage of data systems across the disease course. These knowledge gaps must be filled to improve the quality and efficiency of emergency care and to fulfill the IOM’s vision of regionalized, coordinated, and accountable emergency care systems. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1297–1305 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine     

Research Directions in Emergency Medicine*

The goal of EM is to improve health while preventing and managing disease and illness in patients seeking emergency medical care. Improvements in emergency medical care and the delivery of this care can be achieved through credible and meaningful research efforts. Improved delivery of emergency medical care through research requires careful planning and the wise use of limited resources. To achieve this goal, EM must provide appropriate training of young investigators and attract support for their work. Promotion of multidisciplinary research teams will help the specialty fulfill its goals. The result will be the improvement of emergency medical care, which will benefit not only the patients whom EPs serve, but also, ultimately, the nation's health.     

Survey of Community Engagement in NIH‐Funded Research

Community engagement is an innovative and required component for Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, the extent of community engagement in NIH‐funded research has not been previously examined. This study assessed baseline prevalence of community engagement activities among NIH‐funded studies at a large Midwestern university with a CTSA. An online survey was e‐mailed to principal investigators of recent NIH‐funded studies (N = 480). Investigators were asked to identify what types of community engagement activities had occurred for each study. Responses were received for 40.4% (194/480) of studies. Overall, 42.6% reported any community engagement activities. More collaborative types of engagement (e.g., community advisory board) were less common than activities requiring less engagement (e.g., sharing study results with community members). Studies with more collaborative community engagement were less likely to be described as basic or preclinical research compared to all other studies. Given NIH''s inclusive call for community engagement in research, relatively few NIH‐funded studies reported community engagement activities, although this study used a broad definition of community and a wide range of types of engagement. These findings may be used to inform the goals of CTSA community engagement programs. Clin Trans Sci 2010; Volume *: 1–4     

Interview‐based Qualitative Research in Emergency Care Part II: Data Collection,Analysis and Results Reporting

Qualitative methods are increasingly being used in emergency care research. Rigorous qualitative methods can play a critical role in advancing the emergency care research agenda by allowing investigators to generate hypotheses, gain an in‐depth understanding of health problems or specific populations, create expert consensus, and develop new intervention and dissemination strategies. In Part I of this two‐article series, we provided an introduction to general principles of applied qualitative health research and examples of its common use in emergency care research, describing study designs and data collection methods most relevant to our field (observation, individual interviews, and focus groups). Here in Part II of this series, we outline the specific steps necessary to conduct a valid and reliable qualitative research project, with a focus on interview‐based studies. These elements include building the research team, preparing data collection guides, defining and obtaining an adequate sample, collecting and organizing qualitative data, and coding and analyzing the data. We also discuss potential ethical considerations unique to qualitative research as it relates to emergency care research.     

Using research metrics to improve timelines: proceedings from the 2nd Annual CTSA clinical research management workshop

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Workshop was conceived as a venue to foster communication among academic medical centers (AMCs) in the development of methods to improve clinical research management. The consortium, comprised of 46 awardee sites as of 2009, many with multiple AMCs, is expected to expand to 60 sites when fully implemented. At the 2nd Annual CTSA Clinical Research Management Workshop held on June 22nd and 23rd , 2009, on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus, consortium members and potential CTSA sites gathered with stakeholders from private industry, the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, and private research organizations, to formulate a plan to address challenges in clinical research management. Specific aims included improving protocol processing and sharing process improvement initiatives in the expectation that best practices will be implemented and improvements will be measured and reported. The findings presented at this workshop indicated significant variance in Institutional Review Board approval of protocols and contract execution by AMC and CTSA sites. Most represented marked delays compared to non-AMC sites and that, as a likely consequence, AMCs were later to enroll patients and/or meet enrollment targets compared to dedicated or professional sites.     

"Oh, the places you'll go": transformation of the nation's biomedical research enterprise in the 21st century

The postgenomic era and heightened public expectations for tangible improvements in the public health have stimulated a complete transformation of the nation's biomedical research enterprise. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) "Roadmap for Medical Research" has catalyzed this transformation. The NIH roadmap consists of several interrelated initiatives, of which the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program is the most relevant for rehabilitation specialists. This article reviews the evolution of this transformation and highlights the unprecedented opportunities the CTSA program provides rehabilitation specialists to play leadership roles in improving the clinical care of their patients.     

Development of the Capacity Necessary to Perform and Promote Knowledge Translation Research in Emergency Medicine

Knowledge translation (KT) research in emergency medicine (EM) is in its infancy, and few EM investigators have the skills needed to perform KT research. Furthermore, the capacity to perform such KT research is underdeveloped in the field of EM. This consensus group used an iterative process to set forth initial recommendations and suggest methods for the development of EM KT research capacity. We have emphasized the need to form sustainable linkages, particularly between EM researchers and KT scientists, and to educate EM researchers in KT research methods to help create and sustain a culture of KT in our field. EM KT researchers must also engage local and national organizations and stakeholders to fund and promote KT research. Finally, we see the need to further develop and support EM research networks, as these networks will be both the clinical laboratories in which to perform the KT research and the incubators for the development of EM KT research experts.     

The Quantitative Evaluation of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program Based on Science Mapping and Scientometric Analysis

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program is one of the most important initiatives in translational medical funding. The quantitative evaluation of the efficiency and performance of the CTSA program has a significant referential meaning for the decision making of global translational medical funding. Using science mapping and scientometric analytic tools, this study quantitatively analyzed the scientific articles funded by the CTSA program. The results of the study showed that the quantitative productivities of the CTSA program had a stable increase since 2008. In addition, the emerging trends of the research funded by the CTSA program covered clinical and basic medical research fields. The academic benefits from the CTSA program were assisting its members to build a robust academic home for the Clinical and Translational Science and to attract other financial support. This study provided a quantitative evaluation of the CTSA program based on science mapping and scientometric analysis. Further research is required to compare and optimize other quantitative methods and to integrate various research results.     

Nurse Engagement and Contributions to the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Initiative

CTSAs are mandated to follow a multidisciplinary model. Requests for applications direct responsive applications to “integrate clinical and translational science across multiple departments, schools,” listing disciplines in addition to medicine such as engineering, nursing, and public health. This inventory of nurse engagement in CTSAs describes the extent of nursing''s CTSA engagement from the perspective of participating nurse scientists within individual CTSAs, including institutional/national contributions and best practices that foster a multidisciplinary model. Of the 50 CTSAs affiliated with a nursing school, 44 responded (88% response rate). Of the ten CTSAs not affiliated with a nursing school, four responded (40% response rate). Overall funding success rates of nurse applicants are: TL1 fellowships 81%, KL2 fellowships 54%, and nurse‐led pilots 58%. At most CTSAs nursing is contributing to the accomplishment of the CTSA mandate. The strongest categories of contribution are community engagement, implementation science, and training. Best practices to enhance multidisciplinary collaboration are: (1) inclusion of multiple disciplines on key committees who meet regularly to guide individual core and overall CTSA strategic planning and implementation; (2) required multidisciplinary co‐mentors (ideally from different schools within the CTSA) on training grants and as co‐investigators on pilot projects; and (3) documentation of multidisciplinary activity in annual reports.