Establishing Research Priorities for Patient Safety in Emergency Medicine: A Multidisciplinary Consensus Panel

Plint et al. (2015) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

patient safety in emergency medicine

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - Canada

Why was it conducted at all?

Patient safety in the context of emergency medicine is a relatively new field of study. To date, no broad research agenda for patient safety in emergency medicine has been established.

What was the objective?

to establish patient safety-related research priorities for emergency medicine

What was the outcome?

a list of 15 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

Delphi

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: Delphi round 1: survey with open-ended question to elicit research priorities pertaining to patient safety research in emergency medicine, overall participants identified 117 research priorities, resulting in 66 unique research priorities within 7 broad categories. Step 2: Delphi round 2: via survey, participants were asked to determine their level of agreement on the identified items as patient safety-related research priorities for emergency medicine, priorities that were rated by ≥70% of the participants as ‘moderately disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree' were discarded for the next rounds. Step 3: Delphi round 3: via meeting, ratings of round 2 were reviewed. Step 4: Delphi round 4: via survey, participants were asked to to determine their level of agreement with the research priorities

Which stakeholders took part?

Clinicians (generalist and pediatric emergency physicians and nurses), administrators, researchers from adult and pediatric emergency medicine, patient safety, pharmacy, and mental health, as well as representatives from patient safety organizations. 19 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

The project team approached 36 identified experts, invited them to participate in the panel, and used a snowball sampling approach by asked them to suggest other potential panel members. The project team also used convenience sampling to survey representatives from the Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation and Canadian Patient Safety Institute and patient safety researchers (N=7), directors of all Canadian pediatric academic EDs (N=14), trauma directors from hospitals accredited by the Trauma Association of Canada (N=11), and leaders of three pediatric emergency medicine research networks (N=5). The project team used purposeful sampling (to represent a wide geographic area) to survey ED directors from Canadian community hospitals (N=35) selected from a research and clinical partnership network.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.