Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open (Feb 2023)

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

  • Scott Lancaster,
  • William J. Leggio,
  • Stephanie Ashford,
  • Elliot Carhart,
  • Kim D. McKenna,
  • Remle P. Crowe

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12882
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 4, no. 1
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract 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.