Establishing the research priorities of paediatric emergency medicine clinicians in the UK and Ireland

Hartshorn, Stuart; O’Sullivan, Ronan; Maconochie, Ian; Bevan, C; Cleugh, Francesca; Lyttle, Mark D

doi:10.1136/emermed-2014-204484

Cited by 37 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some areas included in other prioritisation exercises and not included in our final list included: injury prevention, mental health, acuity scales4, clinical decision rules in children with petechiae, the cost effectiveness of observation wards and head injury rules 3…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of each round are refined by the convener, or a representative group, and reissued to the participants in subsequent rounds, until consensus has been achieved. Our methodology was modelled on similar surveys conducted by the Paediatric Emergency Research United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI) network,3 and by the Australian Paediatric Research Network (APRN) 5. Ethics approval for the project was sought and granted by The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne (HREC 35035_B).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

PREDICT prioritisation study: establishing the research priorities of paediatric emergency medicine physicians in Australia and New Zealand

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

PREDICT prioritisation study: establishing the research priorities of paediatric emergency medicine physicians in Australia and New Zealand

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other stakeholders, such as care home residents, their families and friends, and healthcare professionals were not included as it was considered that their perspectives may be too heterogeneous to be combined into one priority setting exercise conducted entirely using remote survey techniques. A number of priority setting exercises have exclusively used a single group of healthcare professionals [25–27]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing a set of research priorities in care homes for older people in the UK: a modified Delphi consensus study with care home staff

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backgroundcurrently, there is little evidence base for much of the care provided for older people in care homes. Given the wide range of topics that require further investigation, and limited resources, one solution is to identify the priorities for future research.Methodsa modified Delphi technique was used to identify research topics and develop consensus among care home staff participants. The survey was conducted across three rounds. Firstly to elicit topics that were considered by participants to require further research, secondly to prioritise the long list of research questions, followed by a third round to reach a consensus on the highest ranked 15 questions.Resultseighty-three participants responded to the initial survey, providing 144 questions. Following analysis and review against existing evidence, 76 research questions remained. Of note, 40/83 participants responded to the interim prioritisation round and 43/83 participants responded to the final round, which ranked the top 15 research questions by importance. Two other groups of health and social care professionals also participated in the final ranking. The results from these groups had a similar ordering to those of the original cohort of participants.Conclusionthis is the first study to establish a set of research priorities for older people in the UK care homes. It is hoped that sharing these results with clinicians, researchers and funding bodies will help to begin the process of ensuring that the future research agenda can be focused on the areas of greatest need. Further work to identify the priorities of other key stakeholders is required.

show abstract

“…The need to verify whether scoring systems are able to accurately predict severe illness or injury in the emergency department (ED) has been highlighted as one of the top research priorities for paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) in the UK and Ireland 1. For this reason, there is a need to define significant childhood illness and injury in the ED to facilitate quality research in this area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining significant childhood illness and injury in the Emergency Department: a consensus of UK and Ireland expert opinion

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundClarifying whether paediatric early warning scores (PEWS) accurately predict significant illness is a research priority for UK and Ireland paediatric emergency medicine (EM). However, a standardised list of significant conditions to benchmark these scores does not exist.ObjectivesTo establish standardised significant illness endpoints for use in determining the performance accuracy of PEWS and safety systems in emergency departments (ED), using a consensus of expert opinion in the UK and Ireland.DesignBetween July 2017 and February 2018, three online Delphi rounds established a consensus on ‘significant’ clinical conditions, derived from a list of common childhood illness/injury ED presentations. Conditions warranting acute hospital admission in the opinion of the respondent were defined as ‘significant’, using a 5-point Likert scale. The consensus was a priori ≥80% (positive or negative). 258 clinical conditions were tested.Participants and settingsEligible participants were consultants in acute or EM paediatrics, or adult EM, accessed via 53 PERUKI (Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland)’s research collaborative sites, and 27 GAPRUKI (General and Adolescent Paediatric Research in the UK and Ireland)’s sites, 17 of which overlap with PERUKI.Main outcome measuresTo create a list of conditions regarded as ‘significant’with ≥80% expert consensus.Results43 (68%) of 63 PERUKI and GAPRUKI sites responded; 295 experts were invited to participate. Participants in rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 223 (76%), 177 (60%) and 148 (50%), respectively; 154 conditions reached positive consensus as ‘significant’; 1 condition reached a negative consensus (uncomplicated Henoch-Schönlein purpura); and 37 conditions achieved non-consensus.ConclusionsA list of significant childhood conditions has been created using UK and Irish expert consensus, for research purposes, for the first time. This will be used as the benchmark endpoint list for future research into PEWS/safety systems performance in EDs.

show abstract

Establishing the research priorities of paediatric emergency medicine clinicians in the UK and Ireland

Abstract: Research priorities of PERUKI members have been identified. By sharing these results with clinicians, academics and funding bodies, future research efforts can be focused to the areas of greatest need.

Cited by 37 publications

References 13 publications

PREDICT prioritisation study: establishing the research priorities of paediatric emergency medicine physicians in Australia and New Zealand

PREDICT prioritisation study: establishing the research priorities of paediatric emergency medicine physicians in Australia and New Zealand

Establishing a set of research priorities in care homes for older people in the UK: a modified Delphi consensus study with care home staff

Defining significant childhood illness and injury in the Emergency Department: a consensus of UK and Ireland expert opinion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About