Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC): Patient/Family-Informed Research Priorities for Pediatric Emergency Medicine

Bialy et al. (2018) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

pediatric emergency medicine

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - Canada

Why was it conducted at all?

Canadian PEM physicians created a research network called Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC), [http://www.perc-canada.ca/], which brought together tertiary pediatric emergency care institutions throughout Canada to conduct research designed to improve the health of children. Similar research networks in the United States [Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN)], the United Kingdom [Pediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI)] and Australia and New Zealand [Paediatric Research in Emergency Department International Collaborative (PREDICT)] have published consensus based research priorities for their networks. However, these processes focused on clinicians, investigators and administrators and they did not include patients or families. Thus, our project focused specifically on engaging patients and families in the prioritization process to ensure that patient and families' views are included in the selection of research topics.

What was the objective?

to engage patients and families in developing a prioritized list of research topics for Pediatric Emergency Medicine

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 15 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

Delphi; meeting

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: collecting topics: all 15 PERC sites were invited to provide data on the 50 most common chief complaints, admission and discharge diagnoses, along with de-identified patient complaints and Morbidity and Mortality round topics, these results were then combined with topics identified in prior research priority setting initiatives from other pediatric emergency research networks. Step 2: data processing: removal of duplicates, 85 potential research topics retained. Step 3: Delphi round 1: participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agree that each topic is a priority for multi-centre research in the PERC network. Step 4: Delphi round 2: only topics that did not reach consensus were re-rated. Step 5: face-to-face meeting: group discussion with nominal group technique: participants discussed the topics, clarified meaning, re-phrased topics and suggested new topics. Step 6: Delphi round 3: participants were asked to re-rate the remaining 35 topics

Which stakeholders took part?

Parents of children who had received emergency care, emergency physicians, nurses, administrators, educators, trainees. Delphi round 1: 92 participants. Delphi round 2: 23 participants. Delphi round 3: 22 participants. Meeting: 22 participants: 14 PERC site leads, 2 PhD health researchers and 6 parents.

How were stakeholders recruited?

The parent participants were identified through established patient and parent advisory and engagement groups.

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.