Research methods: beyond the clinical trial

Resident Research in Emergency Medicine: An Introduction and Primer

Training in research methodology represents an important aspect of emergency medicine (EM) resident education, but best methods for design, implementation, and dissemination of resident research remain elusive. Here we describe recommendations and best practices from the existing literature on EM resident research, including helpful tips on how to best implement a resident research program.

Understanding the value of mixed methods research: the Children's Safety Initiative-Emergency Medical Services

Mixed methods research has significant potential to broaden the scope of emergency care and specifically emergency medical services investigation. Mixed methods studies involve the coordinated use of qualitative and quantitative research approaches to gain a fuller understanding of practice. By combining what is learnt from multiple methods, these approaches can help to characterise complex healthcare systems, identify the mechanisms of complex problems such as medical errors and understand aspects of human interaction such as communication, behaviour and team performance. Mixed methods approaches may be particularly useful for out-of-hospital care researchers because care is provided in complex systems where equipment, interpersonal interactions, societal norms, environment and other factors influence patient outcomes. The overall objectives of this paper are to (1) introduce the fundamental concepts and approaches of mixed methods research and (2) describe the interrelation and complementary features of the quantitative and qualitative components of mixed methods studies using specific examples from the Children's Safety Initiative-Emergency Medical Services (CSI-EMS), a large National Institutes of Health-funded research project conducted in the USA.

A pathway care model allowing low-risk patients to gain direct admission to a hospital medical ward--a pilot study on ambulance nurses and Emergency Department physicians

A pathway care model allowing low-risk patients to gain rapid admission to a hospital medical ward - a pilot study on ambulance nurses and Emergency Department physicians.

BACKGROUND

Patients with non-urgent medical symptoms who nonetheless require inpatient hospital treatment often have to wait for an unacceptably long time at the Emergency Department (ED). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and effect on length of delay of a pathway care model for low-risk patients who have undergone prehospital assessment by an ambulance nurse and ED assessment by a physician within 10 minutes of arrival at the ED.

METHODS

The pilot study comparing two low-risk groups took place in western Sweden from October 2011 until January 2012. The pathway model for low-risk patients was used prospectively in the rapid admission group (N = 51), who were admitted rapidly after being assessed by the nurse on scene and then assessed by the ED physician on ED admission. A retrospectively assembled control group (N = 51) received traditional care at the ED. All p-values are age-adjusted.

RESULTS

Patients in the rapid admission group were older (mean age 80 years old) than patients in the control group (mean age 73 years old) (p = 0.02). The median delay from arrival at the patient's side until arrival in a hospital medical ward was 57 minutes for the rapid admission group versus 4 hours 13 minutes for the control group (p < 0.0001). However, the median delay time from the ambulance's arrival at the patient's side until the nurse was free for a new assignment was 77 minutes for the rapid admission group versus 49 minutes for the control group (p < 0.0001). The 30-day mortality rate was 20% for the rapid admission group and only 4% for the control group (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

The pathway care model for low-risk patients gaining rapid admission to a hospital medical ward shortened length of delay from the first assessment until arrival at the ward. However, the result was achieved at the cost of an increased workload for the ambulance nurse. Furthermore patients who were rapidly admitted to a hospital ward had a high age level and a high early mortality rate. Patient safety in this new model of fast-track assessment needs to be further evaluated.

Am I doing the right thing? Provider perspectives on improving palliative care in the emergency department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Although the focus of emergency care is on the diagnosis and treatment of acute illnesses and injuries or the stabilization of patients for ongoing treatment, some patients may benefit from a palliative approach. Little is known about delivering palliative care in the emergency department (ED). We explore the attitudes, experiences, and beliefs of emergency providers about palliative care in the ED, using structured qualitative methods.

METHODS

We studied 3 focus groups with 26 providers, including 14 physicians (10 residents, 4 attending physicians), 6 nurses, 2 social workers, and 4 technicians, working in 2 academic EDs in Boston. We used a grounded theory approach to code responses, resolving discrepancies by consensus.

RESULTS

Six distinct themes emerged: (1) participants equated palliative care with end-of-life care; (2) participants disagreed about the feasibility and desirability of providing palliative care in the ED; (3) patients for whom a palliative approach has been established often visit the ED because family members are distressed by end-of-life symptoms; (4) lack of communication between outpatient and ED providers leads to undesirable outcomes (eg, resuscitation of patients with a do-not-resuscitate order); (5) conflict around withholding life-prolonging treatment is common (eg, between patient's family and written advance directives); and (6) training in pain management is inadequate.

CONCLUSION

Providers ranked improved communication and documentation from outpatient providers as their highest priority for improvement. Attitudinal and structural barriers may need to be overcome to improve palliative care in the ED. Despite targeted recruitment, attending physician participation was low.