• J L Jensen, I E Blanchard, B L Bigham, Aje Carter, R Brown, D Socha, L H Brown, A H Travers, A M Craig, and L J Morrison.
• *Emergency Health Services,Dartmouth,NS.
• Can J Emerg Med. 2015 Sep 1;17(5):484-90.

BackgroundA recent mixed-methods study on the state of emergency medical services (EMS) research in Canada led to the generation of nineteen actionable recommendations. As part of the dissemination plan, a survey was distributed to EMS stakeholders to determine the anticipated impact and feasibility of implementing these recommendations in Canadian systems.MethodsAn online survey explored both the implementation impact and feasibility for each recommendation using a five-point scale. The sample consisted of participants from the Canadian National EMS Research Agenda study (published in 2013) and additional EMS research stakeholders identified through snowball sampling. Responses were analysed descriptively using median and plotted on a matrix. Participants reported any planned or ongoing initiatives related to the recommendations, and required or anticipated resources. Free text responses were analysed with simple content analysis, collated by recommendation.ResultsThe survey was sent to 131 people, 94 (71.8%) of whom responded: 30 EMS managers/regulators (31.9%), 22 researchers (23.4%), 15 physicians (16.0%), 13 educators (13.8%), and 5 EMS providers (5.3%). Two recommendations (11%) had a median impact score of 4 (of 5) and feasibility score of 4 (of 5). Eight recommendations (42%) had an impact score of 5, with a feasibility score of 3. Nine recommendations (47%) had an impact score of 4 and a feasibility score of 3.ConclusionsFor most recommendations, participants scored the anticipated impact higher than the feasibility to implement. Ongoing or planned initiatives exist pertaining to all recommendations except one. All of the recommendations will require additional resources to implement.

5 keywords...

hide…