Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:10:09.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prehospital Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2017

Donald M. Yealy*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center;, Department of Emergency Medicine, Scott and White Memorial Hospital, Temple, Texas;, Research and Development Committee, National Association of EMS Physicians
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, Scott and White Hospital, 2401 S. 31st Street, Temple, TX 76508, USA

Extract

Prehospital care experienced a “honeymoon” from the early 1970s until recently. Treatments usually were extrapolated directly from the hospital setting, even though the prehospital environment is markedly different. That honeymoon is over and emergency medical services (EMS) providers must prove what is beneficial. Additionally, academic prehospital care physicians interested in professional advancement, must show the same ability as do the more traditional medical academicians to expand the knowledge base of their chosen field.

This manuscript will highlight the basic features and identify the potential benefits and pitfalls of prehospital research. This chapter is not a cookbook for EMS research, nor will it obviate the need for accessing other sources on research design. Other manuscripts within this series will focus on more specific topics; yet, it will be obvious that many of the points made here will be re-emphasized in the following papers. That simply is a reflection of the importance of these commonly overlooked perils and pitfalls.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Browner, WS, Newman, TB: Are all significant P values created equal? JAMA 1987;257:24592463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Campbell, DT, Stanley, JC: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1963.Google Scholar
3. Cook, TD, Campbell, DT: Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Sellings. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA, 1979.Google Scholar
4. Elston, RC, Johnson, WD: Essentials of Biostatistics. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co., 1987.Google Scholar
5. Gibson, G: Emergency medical services: The research gaps. Health Services Research 1974; 9:621.Google ScholarPubMed
6. Gibson, G: EMS evaluation: Criteria for standards and research designs. Health Services Research 1976; 11:105111.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Heller, MB, Melton, JB, Kaplan, RM, Paris, PM: Data collection by paramedics for prehospital research. Ann Emerg Med 1988; 17:414415.Google Scholar
8. Holyrod, B, Knopp, R, Kallsen, G: Medical control, quality assurance in prehospital care. JAMA 1985;256:10271031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hulley, SB, Cummings, SR (eds): Designing Clinical Research. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1988.Google Scholar
10. Iber, FL, Riley, WA, Murray, PJ: Conducting Clinical Trials. New York: Plenum Medical Book Co. 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Menegazzi, JJ, Yealy, DM: Methods of data analysis in the emergency medicine literature. Am J Emerg Med 1991;9:225227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Paris, PM, Stewart, RD, Deggler, F: Prehospital use of dexamethasone in pulseless idioventricular rhythm. Ann Emerg Med 1984;13:10081010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Pasternak, SJ, Paris, PM: Placebo Therapy. In Paris, PM, Stewart, RD (eds) Pain Management in Emergency Medicine. Norwalk, Conn.: Appleton & Lange, 1988.Google Scholar
14. Riegelman, R: The importance of significance and the significance of importance. Postgrad Med 1979;66:119124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Simon, R: Confidence intervals for reporting results of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 1986; 105:429435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Spaite, DW, Criss, EA, Valenzuela, TD, et al: A prospective evaluation of prehospital patient assessment by direct in-field observation: Failure of ALS personnel to measure vital signs. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1990;5:325334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Swor, RA, Hoelzer, MH: A computer-assisted quality assurance audit in a multi-provider EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:286290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Swor, RA, Bocka, JJ, Maio, RF: A paramedic peer-review quality assurance audit. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1991;6:321326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. The Coronary Drug Project Research Group. Influence of adherence to treatment and response of cholesterol on mortality in the coronary drug project. N Engl J Med 1980;303:10381041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Warnke, WJ, Bonnin, MJ: Direction and motivation of prehospital personnel to do research: How to do it better. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1992;7:7983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Yealy, DM, Scruggs, KS: Study design and pretrial peer review in EMS research. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1990;5:113118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Yealy, DM, Scruggs, KS, Weiss, LD: Informed consent in prehospital research. Am J Emerg Med 1989;5:560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar