Global emergency medicine research priorities: a mapping review.

Recognizing and prioritizing research areas in emergency care is crucial for generating evidence and advancing research programs, aiming to enhance health outcomes for both individuals and populations. The objective of this review is to document global clinical and nonclinical research priorities. The Emergency Medicine Education and Research by Global Experts network, consisting of 22 sites across six continents, conducted a mapping review of publications on emergency medicine research priorities (2000-2022) across seven databases. We included studies with replicable methodologies for determining research priorities, excluding those limited to individual diseases. Three reviewers independently screened, selected, and categorized results into clinical and nonclinical topics. Discrepancies were resolved by an independent investigator and consensus. Outcomes measures and analysis include descriptive analysis of research priorities grouped into clinical and nonclinical topics, characteristics of publications including countries represented in the author list, target audience (such as researchers or policy makers), participants (e.g. patients), and methods (e.g. Delphi) of priority setting. Among 968 screened papers, 57 publications from all WHO regions were included. Most (36, 63%) had authors from only a single country, primarily in North America and Europe. Patient representatives were included in only 10 (18%). Clinical research priorities clustered into resuscitation, cardiology, central nervous system, emergency medical services, infectious disease, mental health, respiratory disease, and trauma. Distribution was broad in North America and Europe but focused on infectious diseases and resuscitation in Africa and Asia. Eleven nonclinical topics included access to care, health policy, screening/triage, social determinants of health, staffing, technology/simulation, shared decision making, cross-sectoral collaboration, education, patient-centered care, and research networks. Nonclinical topics were broad in Europe and America, focused on access to care and health screening in Africa, and mostly absent in other WHO regions. Published research priorities in emergency medicine are heterogeneous and geographically limited, mostly containing groups of authors from the same country. The majority of publications in global research priority setting stem from Western countries, covering a broad spectrum of clinical and nonclinical topics. Research priorities from Africa and Asia tend to focus on specific issues more prevalent in those regions of the world.

Types of diagnostic errors reported by paediatric emergency providers in a global paediatric emergency care research network.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors, reframed as missed opportunities for improving diagnosis (MOIDs), are poorly understood in the paediatric emergency department (ED) setting. We investigated the clinical experience, harm and contributing factors related to MOIDs reported by physicians working in paediatric EDs. METHODS: We developed a web-based survey in which physicians participating in the international Paediatric Emergency Research Network representing five out of six WHO regions, described examples of MOIDs involving their own or a colleague's patients. Respondents provided case summaries and answered questions regarding harm and factors contributing to the event. RESULTS: Of 1594 physicians surveyed, 412 (25.8%) responded (mean age=43 years (SD=9.2), 42.0% female, mean years in practice=12 (SD=9.0)). Patient presentations involving MOIDs had common undifferentiated symptoms at initial presentation, including abdominal pain (21.1%), fever (17.2%) and vomiting (16.5%). Patients were discharged from the ED with commonly reported diagnoses, including acute gastroenteritis (16.7%), viral syndrome (10.2%) and constipation (7.0%). Most reported MOIDs (65%) were detected on ED return visits (46% within 24 hours and 76% within 72 hours). The most common reported MOID was appendicitis (11.4%), followed by brain tumour (4.4%), meningitis (4.4%) and non-accidental trauma (4.1%). More than half (59.1%) of the reported MOIDs involved the patient/parent-provider encounter (eg, misinterpreted/ignored history or an incomplete/inadequate physical examination). Types of MOIDs and contributing factors did not differ significantly between countries. More than half of patients had either moderate (48.7%) or major (10%) harm due to the MOID. CONCLUSIONS: An international cohort of paediatric ED physicians reported several MOIDs, often in children who presented to the ED with common undifferentiated symptoms. Many of these were related to patient/parent-provider interaction factors such as suboptimal history and physical examination. Physicians' personal experiences offer an underexplored source for investigating and mitigating diagnostic errors in the paediatric ED.

The Emergency Medicine Education and Research by Global Experts (EMERGE) Network: Challenges and Lessons Learned.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Medicine Education and Research by Global Experts (EMERGE) network was formed to generate and translate evidence to improve global emergency care. We share the challenges faced and lessons learned in establishing a global research network. METHODS: We describe the challenges encountered when EMERGE proposed the development of a global emergency department (ED) visit registry. The proposed registry was to be a six-month, retrospective, deidentified, minimal dataset of routinely collected variables, such as patient demographics, diagnosis, and disposition. RESULTS: Obtaining reliable, accurate, and pertinent data from participating EDs is challenging in a global context. Barriers experienced ranged from variable taxonomies, need for language translation, varying site processes for curation and transfer of deidentified data, navigating institution- and country-specific data protection regulations, and substantial variation in each participating institution's research infrastructure including training in research-related activities. We have overcome many of these challenges by creating detailed data-sharing agreements with bilateral regulatory oversight agreements between EMERGE and participating EDs, developing relationships with and training health informaticians at each site to ensure secure transfer of deidentified data, and formalizing an electronic transfer process ensuring data privacy. CONCLUSION: We believe that networks like EMERGE are integral to providing the necessary platforms for education, training, and research collaborations for emergency care. We identified substantial challenges in data sharing and variation in local sites' research infrastructure and propose potential approaches to address these challenges.

A Global Survey of Emergency Department Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (ED) globally are addressing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with varying degrees of success. We leveraged the 17-country, Emergency Medicine Education & Research by Global Experts (EMERGE) network and non-EMERGE ED contacts to understand ED emergency preparedness and practices globally when combating the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We electronically surveyed EMERGE and non-EMERGE EDs from April 3-June 1, 2020 on ED capacity, pandemic preparedness plans, triage methods, staffing, supplies, and communication practices. The survey was available in English, Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish to optimize participation. We analyzed survey responses using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 74/129 (57%) EDs from 28 countries in all six World Health Organization global regions responded. Most EDs were in Asia (49%), followed by North America (28%), and Europe (14%). Nearly all EDs (97%) developed and implemented protocols for screening, testing, and treating patients with suspected COVID-19 infections. Sixty percent responded that provider staffing/back-up plans were ineffective. Many sites (47/74, 64%) reported staff missing work due to possible illness with the highest provider proportion of COVID-19 exposures and infections among nurses. CONCLUSION: Despite having disaster plans in place, ED pandemic preparedness and response continue to be a challenge. Global emergency research networks are vital for generating and disseminating large-scale event data, which is particularly important during a pandemic.