CAEP 2014 Academic Symposium: “How to make research succeed in your department: Promoting excellence in Canadian emergency medicine resident research”

Lang

et al. 2016

CJEM

Self Cite

Objective: We sought to conduct a major objective of the CAEP Academic Section, an environmental scan of the academic emergency medicine programs across the 17 Canadian medical schools. Methods: We developed an 84-question questionnaire, which was distributed to academic heads. The responses were validated by phone by the lead author to ensure that the questions were answered completely and consistently. Details of pediatric emergency medicine units were excluded from the scan.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Environmental Scan of Academic Emergency Medicine at the 17 Canadian Medical Schools: Why Does this Matter to Emergency Physicians?

Stiell

Lang

et al. 2016

CJEM

Self Cite

“…Dynamic discussions and suggestions provided at the symposium (which had 80 attendees, including physician-scientists, educators, administrators, clinicians, and residents) augmented and refined the recommendations, which are summarized herein and will be presented in detail in the next three CJEM issues. 1,2,3 …”

Section: Caep 2014 Academic Symposiummentioning

confidence: 99%

Executive summary of the CAEP 2014 Academic Symposium: How to make research succeed in your department

Stiell

Perry

et al. 2015

CJEM

Self Cite

The vision of the recently created Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Section is to promote high-quality emergency patient care by conducting world-leading education and research in emergency medicine. The Academic Section plans to achieve this goal by enhancing academic emergency medicine primarily at Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals. It seeks to foster and develop education, research, and academic leadership amongst Canadian emergency physicians, residents, and students. In this light, the Academic Section began in 2013 to hold the annual Academic Symposia to highlight best practices and recommendations for the three core domains of governance and leadership, education scholarship, and research. Each year, members of three panels are asked to review the literature, survey and interview experts, achieve consensus, and present their recommendations at the Symposium (2013, Education Scholarship; 2014, Research; and 2015, Governance and Funding).Research is essential to medical advancement. As a relatively young specialty, emergency medicine is rapidly evolving to adapt to new diagnostic tools, the challenges of crowding in emergency departments, and the growing needs of emergency patients. There is significant variability in the infrastructure, support, and productivity of emergency medicine research programs across Canada. All Canadians benefit from an investigation of the means to improve research infrastructure, training programs, and funding opportunities. Such an analysis is essential to identify areas for improvement, which will support the expansion of emergency medicine research. To this end, physician-scientist leaders were gathered from across Canada to develop pragmatic recommendations on the improvement of emergency medicine research through a comprehensive analysis of current best practices, systematic literature reviews, stakeholder surveys, and expert interviews.

“…By consensus, panelists identified the following stakeholders: 1) research contributors and producers, including medical students, residents, fellows, faculty members without research training, young investigators, and mid-career and senior investigators 17 ; 2) local academic leaders; and 3) national organizations.…”

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

CAEP 2014 Academic symposium: “How to make research succeed in your department: How to fund your research program”

Vaillancourt

Rowe

et al. 2015

CJEM

Self Cite

Objective: We sought to gather a comprehensive list of funding strategies and opportunities for emergency medicine (EM) centres across Canada, and make recommendations on how to successfully fund all levels of research activity, including research projects, staff salaries, infrastructure, and researcher stipends. Methods: We formed an expert panel consisting of volunteers recognized nationally for their scholarly work in EM. First, we conducted interviews with academic leaders and researchers to obtain a description of their local funding strategies using a standardized open-ended questionnaire. Panelists then identified emerging funding models. Second, we listed funding opportunities and initiatives at the provincial, national, and international levels. Finally, we used an iterative consensusbased approach to derive pragmatic recommendations after incorporating comments and suggestions from participants at an academic symposium. Results: Our review of funding strategies identified four funding models: 1) investigator dependent model, 2) practice plan, 3) generous benefactor, and 4) mixed funding. Recommendations in this document include approaches for research contributors and producers (seven recommendations), for local academic leaders (five recommendations), and for national organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) (three recommendations). Conclusions: Funding for research in EM varies across Canada and is largely insecure. We offer recommendations to help facilitate funding for large and small projects, for salary support, and for local and national leaders to advance EM research. We believe that these recommendations will increase funding for all levels of EM research activity, including research projects, staff salaries, infrastructure, and researcher stipends.