Revisiting the Emergency Medicine Services for Children Research Agenda: Priorities for Multicenter Research in Pediatric Emergency Care

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital of New York-Presbyterian, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Academic Emergency Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.01). 05/2008; 15(4):377-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00072.x
Source: PubMed


To describe the creation of an Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) research agenda specific to multicenter research. Given the need for multicenter research in EMSC and the unique opportunity afforded by the creation of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN), the authors revisited existing EMSC research agendas to develop a PECARN-specific research agenda. They sought to prioritize PECARN research efforts, to guide investigators planning to conduct research in PECARN, and to describe the creation of a prioritized EMSC research agenda specific for multicenter research.
The authors used the Nominal Group Process and Hanlon Process of Prioritization (HPP), which are recognized research prioritization methods incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data collection in group settings. The formula used to generate the final priority list heavily weighted practicality of conduct in a multicenter research network. By using size, seriousness, and practicality measures of each health priority, PECARN was able to identify factors that could be scored individually and were weighted relative to each other.
The prioritization processes resulted in a ranked list of 16 multicenter EMSC research topics. Top among these priorities were 1) respiratory illnesses/asthma, 2) prediction rules for high-stakes/low-likelihood diseases, 3) medication error reduction, 4) injury prevention, and 5) urgency and acuity scaling.
The PECARN prioritization process identified high-priority EMSC research topics specific to multicenter research. PECARN has the capacity to answer long-standing, important clinical controversies in EMSC, largely due to its ability to conduct randomized controlled trials and observational studies on a large scale.

Download full-text


Available from: Nathan Kuppermann, Feb 17, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare rates of emergency readmission following discharge for common paediatric conditions from a range of hospital services. Retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics (HES) and telephone survey of service provision. Twelve hospitals serving a metropolitan area in the North West of England. Emergency admissions to hospital within 7 days of discharge for breathing difficulty, feverish illness and/or diarrhoea. HES were obtained for all children under 15 years of age discharged following emergency admission for breathing difficulty, feverish illness and/or diarrhoea during 2005/2006 (n=20,354) or 2006/2007 (n=23,018). The readmission rate for all hospitals in 2006/2007 was 5.5%. The percentage of same day discharges was associated with readmission (Kendall's tau(b) correlation=0.61, p=0.007). Readmissions were also associated with the proportion of same day discharges for breathing difficulty (Kendall's tau(b)=0.83, p<0.001) and feverish illness (Kendall's tau(b)=0.50, p=0.023) but not significantly so with diarrhoea (Kendall's tau(b)=0.37, p=0.098). The total number of admissions at a hospital in the year was associated with its readmission rate (Kendall's tau(b)=0.71, p=0.002). Most of the sample lived in the 40% most deprived areas in England, but there was no significant association between readmission and living in the 10% most deprived areas. Readmission rates are associated with higher numbers of annual admissions and higher proportions of children discharged on the day of admission. Variations between hospitals suggest that other factors can also affect readmission rates. Readmission rates calculated from HES can contribute to assessments of the outcome of emergency services.
    Archives of Disease in Childhood 09/2009; 95(5):341-6. DOI:10.1136/adc.2009.163261 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ability of emergency care research (ECR) to produce meaningful improvements in the outcomes of acutely ill or injured patients depends on the optimal configuration, infrastructure, organization, and support of emergency care research networks (ECRNs). Through the experiences of existing ECRNs, we can learn how to best accomplish this. A meeting was organized in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2008, to discuss the present state and future directions of clinical research networks as they relate to emergency care. Prior to the conference, at the time of online registration, participants responded to a series of preconference questions addressing the relevant issues that would form the basis of the breakout session discussions. During the conference, representatives from a number of existing ECRNs participated in discussions with the attendees and provided a description of their respective networks, infrastructure, and challenges. Breakout sessions provided the opportunity to further discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these networks and patterns of success with respect to their formation, management, funding, best practices, and pitfalls. Discussions centered on identifying characteristics that promote or inhibit successful networks and their interactivity, productivity, and expansion. Here the authors describe the current state of ECRNs and identify the strengths, weaknesses, and potential pitfalls of research networks. The most commonly cited strengths of population- or disease-based research networks identified in the preconference survey were access to larger numbers of patients; involvement of physician experts in the field, contributing to high-level study content; and the collaboration among investigators. The most commonly cited weaknesses were studies with too narrow a focus and restrictive inclusion criteria, a vast organizational structure with a risk of either too much or too little central organization or control, and heterogeneity of institutional policies and procedures among sites. Through the survey and structured discussion process involving multiple stakeholders, the authors have identified strengths and weaknesses that are consistent across a number of existing ECRNs. By leveraging the strengths and addressing the weaknesses, strategies can be adopted to enhance the scientific value and productivity of these networks and give direction to future ECRNs.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 10/2009; 16(10):995-1004. DOI:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00531.x · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite its widespread use in North America and many other parts of the world, the safety of etomidate as an induction agent for rapid sequence intubation in septic patients is still debated. In this article, we evaluate the current literature on etomidate, review its clinical history, and discuss the controversy regarding its use, especially in sepsis. We address eight questions: (i) When did concern over the safety of etomidate first arise? (ii) What is the mechanism by which etomidate is thought to affect the adrenal axis? (iii) How has adrenal insufficiency in relation to etomidate use been defined or identified in the literature? (iv) What is the evidence that single dose etomidate is associated with subsequent adrenal-cortisol dysfunction? (v) What is the clinical significance of adrenal insufficiency or dysfunction associated with single dose etomidate, and where are the data that support or refute the contention that single-dose etomidate is associated with increased mortality or important post emergency department (ED) clinical outcomes? (vi) How should etomidate's effects in septic patients best be measured? (vii) What are alternative induction agents and what are the advantages and disadvantages of these agents relative to etomidate? (viii) What future work is needed to further clarify the characteristics of etomidate as it is currently used in patients with sepsis? We conclude that the observational nature of almost all available data suggesting adverse outcomes from etomidate does not support abandoning its use for rapid sequence induction. However, because we see a need to balance theoretical harms and benefits in the presence of data supporting the non-inferiority of alternative agents without similar theoretical risks associated with them, we suggest that the burden of proof to support continued widespread use may rest with the proponents of etomidate. We further suggest that practitioners become familiar with the use of more than one agent while awaiting further definitive data.
    The western journal of emergency medicine 05/2010; 11(2):161-72.
Show more