Consensus Standard for Evidence Integration into EMS Education and High-Stakes Testing.

BACKGROUND: Incorporating emerging knowledge into Emergency Medical Service (EMS) competency assessments is critical to reflect current evidence-based out-of-hospital care. However, a standardized approach is needed to incorporate new evidence into EMS competency assessments because of the rapid pace of knowledge generation. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop a framework to evaluate and integrate new source material into EMS competency assessments. METHODS: The National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (National Registry) and the Prehospital Guidelines Consortium (PGC) convened a panel of experts. A Delphi method, consisting of virtual meetings and electronic surveys, was used to develop a Table of Evidence matrix that defines sources of EMS evidence. In Round One, participants listed all potential sources of evidence available to inform EMS education. In Round Two, participants categorized these sources into: (a) levels of evidence quality; and (b) type of source material. In Round Three, the panel revised a proposed Table of Evidence. Finally, in Round Four, participants provided recommendations on how each source should be incorporated into competency assessments depending on type and quality. Descriptive statistics were calculated with qualitative analyses conducted by two independent reviewers and a third arbitrator. RESULTS: In Round One, 24 sources of evidence were identified. In Round Two, these were classified into high- (n = 4), medium- (n = 15), and low-quality (n = 5) of evidence, followed by categorization by purpose into providing recommendations (n = 10), primary research (n = 7), and educational content (n = 7). In Round Three, the Table of Evidence was revised based on participant feedback. In Round Four, the panel developed a tiered system of evidence integration from immediate incorporation of high-quality sources to more stringent requirements for lower-quality sources. CONCLUSION: The Table of Evidence provides a framework for the rapid and standardized incorporation of new source material into EMS competency assessments. Future goals are to evaluate the application of the Table of Evidence framework in initial and continued competency assessments.

Defining priorities for emergency medical services education research: A modified Delphi study.

Objective: As out-of-hospital medicine evolves, emergency medical services (EMS) education practices must also be updated to ensure that EMS professionals acquire and maintain the skills needed to best serve patients. We aimed to identify and rank the top 10 research priorities related to EMS education in the United States. Methods: We conducted a convenience survey of EMS educators to identify challenges facing EMS education before leveraging a purposefully selected panel of EMS educators to prioritize research gaps through a modified Delphi approach. Data were collected electronically (March 2021-June 2021) over 4 survey rounds consisting of idea generation (Rounds 1 and 2), importance scoring (Round 3), and consensus ranking (Round 4). At the end of Round 4, composite scores were used to generate a list of 10 prioritized research gaps related to EMS education. Results: In the pre-Delphi survey, 463 EMS educators identified 2055 challenges facing EMS education. We recruited 32 EMS education experts as Delphi panelists and 28 completed all 4 rounds. Panelists submitted 77 knowledge gaps. The top 10 knowledge gaps included defining competency of EMS learners and educators, association of curricula and accreditation requirements with real-world practice, the effects of diversity and cultural humility among educators and learners on equitable patient care, evidence-based teaching methods, and public perception of the EMS profession and education system. Conclusions: Although 10 gaps were prioritized, panelists deemed all 77 gaps as having considerable importance for EMS education. This suite of knowledge gaps is intended to guide researchers and research-funding bodies for future resource allocation.

A Proposed Theoretical Framework for Clinical Judgment in EMS.

In the prehospital setting, EMS clinicians are challenged by the need to assess and treat patients who are clinically undifferentiated with a large constellation of possible medical problems. In addition to possessing a large and diverse set of knowledge, skills, and abilities, EMS clinicians must integrate a plethora of environmental, patient, and event specific cues in their clinical decision-making processes. To date, there is no theoretical framework to capture the complex process that characterizes the prehospital experience from dispatch to handoff, the interface between cues and on-scene information and assessments, while incorporating the importance of leadership and communication. To fill this gap, we propose a theoretical framework for clinical judgment in the prehospital setting that builds upon previously defined methodologies and applies them to the clinical practice of EMS clinicians throughout the EMS experience.

Emergency medical services education research priorities during COVID-19: A modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify research priorities to understand the impact of COVID-19 on initial emergency medical services (EMS) education. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi method with an expert panel (n = 15) of EMS stakeholders to develop consensus on the research priorities that are most important and feasible to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on initial EMS education. Data were collected from August 2020 to February 2021 over 5 rounds (3 electronic surveys and 2 live virtual meetings). In Round 1, participants submitted research priorities over 9 specific areas. Responses were thematically analyzed to develop a list of research priorities reviewed in Round 2. In Round 3, participants rated the priorities by importance and feasibility, with a weighted score (2/3*importance+1/3*feasibility) used for preliminary prioritization. In Round 4, participants ranked the priorities. In Round 5, participants provided their agreement or disagreement with the group's consensus of the top 8 research priorities. RESULTS: During Rounds 1 and 2, 135 ideas were submitted by the panel, leading to a preliminary list of 27 research priorities after thematic analysis. The top 4 research priorities identified by the expert panel were prehospital internship access, impact of lack of field and clinical experience, student health and safety, and EMS education program availability and accessibility. Consensus was reached with 10/11 (91%) participants in Round 5 agreeing. CONCLUSIONS: The identified research priorities are an important first step to begin evaluating the EMS educational infrastructure, processes, and outcomes that were affected or threatened through the pandemic.

Simulation Use in Paramedic Education Research (SUPER): A Descriptive Study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research was to characterize the use of simulation in initial paramedic education programs in order assist stakeholders' efforts to target educational initiatives and resources. This group sought to provide a snapshot of what simulation resources programs have or have access to and how they are used; faculty perceptions about simulation; whether program characteristics, resources, or faculty training influence simulation use; and if simulation resources are uniform for patients of all ages. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional census survey of paramedic programs that were accredited or had a Letter of Review from the Committee on Accreditation of Educational Programs for the EMS Professions at the time of the study. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses. RESULTS: Of the 638 surveys sent, 389 valid responses (61%) were analyzed. Paramedic programs reported they have or have access to a wide range of simulation resources (task trainers [100%], simple manikins [100%], intermediate manikins [99%], advanced/fully programmable manikins [91%], live simulated patients [83%], computer-based [71%], and virtual reality [19%]); however, they do not consistently use them, particularly advanced (71%), live simulated patients (66%), computer-based (games, scenarios) (31%), and virtual reality (4%). Simulation equipment (of any type) reportedly sits idle and unused in (31%) of programs. Lack of training was cited as the most common reason. Personnel support specific to simulation was available in 44% of programs. Programs reported using simulation to replace skills more frequently than to replace field or clinical hours. Simulation goals included assessment, critical thinking, and problem-solving most frequently, and patient and crew safety least often. Programs using advanced manikins report manufacturers as their primary means of training (87%) and that 19% of faculty had no training specific to those manikins. Many (78%) respondents felt they should use more simulation. CONCLUSIONS: Paramedic programs have and have access to diverse simulation resources; however, faculty training and other program resources appear to influence their use.