To make pragmatic recommendations on best practices for the engagement of patients in emergency medicine (EM) research.

We created a panel of expert Canadian EM researchers, physicians, and a patient partner to develop our recommendations. We used mixed methods consisting of 1) a literature review; 2) a survey of Canadian EM researchers; 3) qualitative interviews with key informants; and 4) feedback during the 2017 Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Symposium.

We synthesized our literature review into categories including identification and engagement, patients’ roles, perceived benefits, harms, and barriers to patient engagement; 40/75 (53% response rate) invited researchers completed our survey. Among respondents, 58% had engaged patients in research, and 83% intended to engage patients in future research. However, 95% stated that they need further guidance to engage patients. Our qualitative interviews revealed barriers to patient engagement, including the need for training and patient partner recruitment.

Our panel recommends 1) an overarching positive recommendation to support patient engagement in EM research; 2) seven policy-level recommendations for CAEP to support the creation of a national patient council, to develop, adopt and adapt training material, guidelines, and tools for patient engagement, and to support increased patient engagement in EM research; and 3) nine pragmatic recommendations about engaging patients in the preparatory, execution, and translational phases of EM research.

Patient engagement can improve EM research by helping researchers select meaningful outcomes, increase social acceptability of studies, and design knowledge translation strategies that target patients’ needs.

The objective of this panel was to generate recommendations to promote the engagement of front-line emergency department (ED) clinicians in clinical and implementation research.

Panel members conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 Canadian adult and pediatric emergency medicine researchers to elicit barriers and facilitators to clinician engagement in research activities, and to glean strategies for promoting clinician engagement.

Responses were organized by themes, and, based on these responses, recommendations were developed and refined in an iterative fashion by panel members.

We offer eight recommendations to promote front-line clinician engagement in clinical research activities. Recommendations to promote clinician engagement specifically address the creation of a research-friendly culture in the ED, minimizing the burden of data collection on clinical staff through the careful design of data collection tools and the use of research staff, and communication between researchers and clinical staff to promote adherence to study protocols.

The objective of Panel 2b was to present an overview of and recommendations for the conduct of implementation trials and multicentre studies in emergency medicine.

Panel members engaged methodologists to discuss the design and conduct of implementation and multicentre studies. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 Canadian adult and pediatric emergency medicine researchers to elicit barriers and facilitators to conducting these kinds of studies.

Responses were organized by themes, and, based on these responses, recommendations were developed and refined in an iterative fashion by panel members.

We offer eight recommendations to facilitate multicentre clinical and implementation studies, along with guidance for conducting implementation research in the emergency department. Recommendations for multicentre studies reflect the importance of local study investigators and champions, requirements for research infrastructure and staffing, and the cooperation and communication between the coordinating centre and participating sites.

Advances in emergency medicine research can be slow to make their way into clinical care, and implementing a new evidence-based intervention can be challenging in the emergency department. The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Knowledge Translation Symposium working group set out to produce recommendations for best practice in the implementation of a new science in Canadian emergency departments.

A systematic review of implementation strategies to change health care provider behaviour in the emergency department was conducted simultaneously with a national survey of emergency physician experience. We summarized our findings into a list of draft recommendations that were presented at the national CAEP Conference 2017 and further refined based on feedback through social media strategies.

We produced 10 recommendations for implementing new evidence-based interventions in the emergency department, which cover identifying a practice gap, evaluating the evidence, planning the intervention strategy, monitoring, providing feedback during implementation, and desired qualities of future implementation research.

We present recommendations to guide future emergency department implementation initiatives. There is a need for robust and well-designed implementation research to guide future emergency department implementation initiatives.

The scholarly dissemination of innovative medical education practices helps broaden the reach of this type of work, allowing scholarship to have an impact beyond a single institution. There is little guidance in the literature for those seeking to publish program evaluation studies and innovation papers. This study aims to derive a set of evidence-based features of high-quality reports on innovations in emergency medicine (EM) education.

We conducted a scoping review and thematic analysis to determine quality markers for medical education innovation reports, with a focus on EM. A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, and Google Scholar was augmented by a hand search of relevant publication guidelines, guidelines for authors, and website submission portals from medical education and EM journals. Study investigators reviewed the selected articles, and a thematic analysis was conducted.

Our search strategy identified 14 relevant articles from which 34 quality markers were extracted. These markers were grouped into seven important themes: goals and need for innovation, preparation, innovation development, innovation implementation, evaluation of innovation, evidence of reflective practice, and reporting and dissemination. In addition, multiple outlets for the publication of EM education innovations were identified and compiled.

The publication and dissemination of innovations are critical for the EM education community and the training of health professionals. We anticipate that our list of innovation report quality markers will be used by EM education innovators to support the dissemination of novel educational practices.