Patient perspectives on priorities for emergency medicine research: The PERSPEX study

The epidemiology of dying within 48 hours of presentation to emergency departments: a retrospective cohort study of older people across Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) clinicians are more frequently providing care, including end-of-life care, to older people.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the need for ED end-of-life care for people aged ≥65 years, describe characteristics of those dying within 48 hours of ED presentation and compare those dying in ED with those dying elsewhere.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study analysing data from 177 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Data on older people presenting to ED from January to December 2018, and those who died within 48 hours of ED presentation, were analysed using simple descriptive statistics and univariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

From participating hospitals in Australia or New Zealand, 10,921 deaths in older people occurred. The 48-hour mortality rate was 6.43 per 1,000 ED presentations (95% confidence interval: 6.31-6.56). Just over a quarter (n = 3,067, 28.1%) died in ED. About one-quarter of the cohort (n = 2,887, 26.4%) was triaged into less urgent triage categories. Factors with an increased risk of dying in ED included age 65-74 years, ambulance arrival, most urgent triage categories, principal diagnosis of circulatory system disorder, and not identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. Of the 7,677 older people admitted, half (n = 3,836, 50.0%) had an encounter for palliative care prior to, or during, this presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide insight into the challenges of recognising the dying older patient and differentiating those appropriate for end-of-life care. We support recommendations for national advanced care planning registers and suggest a review of triage systems with an older person-focused lens.

Research priority setting in emergency care: A scoping review

Objective

Priority areas for emergency care research are emerging and becoming ever more important. The objectives of this scoping review were to (1) provide a comprehensive overview of published emergency care priority‐setting studies by collating and comparing priority‐setting methodology and (2) describe the resulting research priorities identified.

Methods

The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework was used. Inclusion criteria were peer‐review articles available in English, published between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2019 and used 2 or more search terms. Five databases (Scopus, AustHealth, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Ovid MEDLINE) were searched. REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) criteria were used to assess the quality of evidence of included articles.

Results

Forty‐five studies were included. Fourteen themes for emergency care research were considered within 3 overarching research domains: emergency populations (pediatrics, geriatrics), emergency care workforce and processes (nursing, shared decision making, general workforce, and process), and emergency care clinical areas (imaging, falls, pain management, trauma care, substance misuse, infectious diseases, mental health, cardiology, general clinical care). Variation in the reporting of research priority areas was evident. Priority areas to drive the global agenda for emergency care research are limited given the country and professional group‐specific context of existing studies.

Conclusion

This comprehensive summary of generated research priorities across emergency care provides insight into current and future research agendas. With the nature of emergency care being inherently broad, future priorities may warrant population (eg, children, geriatrics) or subspecialty (eg, trauma, toxicology, mental health) focus and be derived using a rigorous framework and patient engagement.

Consumer involvement in emergency medicine research: Lessons from engaging sepsis survivors

Collaboration with consumers is an emerging focus for medical researchers worldwide. Public involvement is increasingly encouraged, and in some cases stipulated by funding bodies, in order to secure financial support. While consumer involvement could be viewed as another hurdle in the funding application process, it can add immense value to research outcomes. However, given the diverse and transient nature of our consumer group, how can we develop meaningful public engagement in emergency medicine research?