Methodology for the development of a Canadian national EMS research agenda

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many health care disciplines use evidence-based decision making to improve patient care and system performance. While the amount and quality of emergency medical services (EMS) research in Canada has increased over the past two decades, there has not been a unified national plan to enable research, ensure efficient use of research resources, guide funding decisions and build capacity in EMS research. Other countries have used research agendas to identify barriers and opportunities in EMS research and define national research priorities. The objective of this project is to develop a national EMS research agenda for Canada that will: 1) explore what barriers to EMS research currently exist, 2) identify current strengths and opportunities that may be of benefit to advancing EMS research, 3) make recommendations to overcome barriers and capitalize on opportunities, and 4) identify national EMS research priorities.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Paramedics, educators, EMS managers, medical directors, researchers and other key stakeholders from across Canada will be purposefully recruited to participate in this mixed methods study, which consists of three phases: 1) qualitative interviews with a selection of the study participants, who will be asked about their experience and opinions about the four study objectives, 2) a facilitated roundtable discussion, in which all participants will explore and discuss the study objectives, and 3) an online Delphi consensus survey, in which all participants will be asked to score the importance of each topic discovered during the interviews and roundtable as they relate to the study objectives. Results will be analyzed to determine the level of consensus achieved for each topic.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>A mixed methods approach will be used to address the four study objectives. We anticipate that the keys to success will be: 1) ensuring a representative sample of EMS stakeholders, 2) fostering an open and collaborative roundtable discussion, and 3) adhering to a predefined approach to measure consensus on each topic. Steps have been taken in the methodology to address each of these <it>a priori </it>concerns.</p

Bare-Hand Volume Cracker for Raw Volume Data Analysis

Analysis of raw volume data generated from different scanning technologies faces a variety of challenges, related to search, pattern recognition, spatial understanding, quantitative estimation, and shape description. In a previous study, we found that the Volume Cracker (VC) 3D interaction (3DI) technique mitigated some of these problems, but this result was from a tethered glove-based system with users analyzing simulated data. Here, we redesigned the VC by using untethered bare-hand interaction with real volume datasets, with a broader aim of adoption of this technique in research labs. We developed symmetric and asymmetric interfaces for the Bare-Hand Volume Cracker (BHVC) through design iterations with a biomechanics scientist. We evaluated our asymmetric BHVC technique against standard 2D and widely used 3D interaction techniques with experts analyzing scanned beetle datasets. We found that our BHVC design significantly outperformed the other two techniques. This study contributes a practical 3DI design for scientists, documents lessons learned while redesigning for bare-hand trackers, and provides evidence suggesting that 3D interaction could improve volume data analysis for a variety of visual analysis tasks. Our contribution is in the realm of 3D user interfaces tightly integrated with visualization, for improving the effectiveness of visual analysis of volume datasets. Based on our experience, we also provide some insights into hardware-agnostic principles for design of effective interaction techniques

Developing a Canadian emergency medical services research agenda: a baseline study of stakeholder opinions

Purpose: This study forms the first phase in the development of the Canadian National EMS Research Agenda. The purpose was to understand the current state of emergency medical services (EMS) research through the barriers and opportunities perceived by key stakeholders in the Canadian system and to identify the recommendations this group had for moving forward.\ud \ud Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in the spring of 2011 using one-on-one semistructured telephone interviews. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit a cross section of EMS research stakeholders, representing a breadth of geographic regions and roles. Data were collected until thematic saturation was reached. A constant comparative approach was used to develop a basic coding framework and identify emerging themes.\ud \ud Results: Twenty stakeholders were invited to participate, and saturation was reached after 13 interviews. Thematic saturation was used to ensure that the findings were grounded in the data. Four major themes were identified: 1) the need for additional research education within EMS; 2) the importance of creating an infrastructure to support pan-Canadian research collaboration; 3) addressing the complexities of involving EMS providers in research; and 4) considerations for a national research agenda.\ud \ud Conclusion: This hypothesis-generating study reveals key areas regarding EMS research in Canada and through the guidance it provides is a first step in the development of a comprehensive national research agenda. Our intention is to collate the identified themes with the results of a larger roundtable discussion and Delphi survey and, in doing so, guide development of a Canadian national EMS research agenda

The Canadian National EMS Research Agenda: a mixed methods consensus study

Introduction: Research is essential for the development of evidence-based emergency medical services (EMS) systems of care. When resources are scarce and gaps in evidence are large, a national agenda may inform the growth of EMS research in Canada. This mixed methods consensus study explores current barriers and existing strengths within Canadian EMS research, provides recommendations, and suggests EMS topics for future study.\ud \ud Methods: Purposeful sampling was employed to invite EMS research stakeholders from various roles across the country. Study phases consisted of 1) baseline interviews of a subsample, 2) roundtable discussion, and 3) an online Delphi survey, in which participants scored each statement for importance. Consensus was defined a priori and met if 80% scored a statement as "important" or "very important."\ud \ud Results: Fifty-three stakeholders participated, representing researchers (37.7%), EMS administrators (24.6%), clinicians/providers (20.7%), and educators (17.0%). Participation rates were as follows: interviews, 13 of 13 (100%); roundtable, 47 of 53 (89%); survey round 1, 50 of 53 (94%); survey round 2, 47 of 53 (89%); and survey round 3, 40 of 53 (75%). A total of 141 statements were identified as important: 20 barriers, 54 strengths/opportunities, 31 recommendations, and 36 suggested topics for future research. Like statements were synthesized, resulting in barriers (n = 10), strengths/opportunities (n = 24), and recommendations (n = 19), which were categorized as time, opportunities, and funding; education and mentorship; culture of research and collaboration; structure, process, and outcome of research; EMS and paramedic practice; and the future of the EMS Research Agenda.\ud \ud Conclusion: Consensus-based key messages from this agenda should be considered when designing, funding, and publishing EMS research and will advance EMS research locally, regionally, and nationally