The rhetoric of "excellence" is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organizations, from art history to zoology. But does "excellence" actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of "excellence" do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate "excellence" as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hyper-competition that arises from the performance of "excellence" is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that "excellence" is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Heart failure (HF) necessitates frequent transport by emergency medical services (EMS), but few studies have been conducted to evaluate predictors of EMS use and of multiple EMS transports that are amenable to intervention. Objectives: To characterize prehospital clinical status of community-dwelling adults with reported HF who used EMS across 8 years and to evaluate predictors of EMS use and multiple EMS transports. Methods: Data were from a database in a large Midwestern county. Descriptive statistics, logistic and negative binomial regression were used for analysis. Results: EMS transports were evaluated for 6582 adults with 16,905 transports. The most common chief complaints were respiratory problems, feeling sick, and chest pain. Shortness of breath, chest pain, level of consciousness, age, gender, race, and hospital site predicted multiple transports. Conclusions: Clinicians need to educate patients with HF about ways to manage shortness of breath and chest pain and when to activate EMS.

Our study shows that police officers trained in naloxone administration can correctly recognize symptoms of opioid overdose, and can appropriately administer naloxone without significant adverse effects or outcomes. Furthermore, the administration of police naloxone does not result in a significant incidence of combativeness or need for scene escalations such as immediate detention. Further research is needed to investigate the impact of police naloxone; specifically, comparing outcomes of police delivery to EMS alone, as well as the impact on rural opioid overdoses.

Aim The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted Emergency Medical Services (EMS) operations throughout the country. Some studies described variation in total volume of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) during the pandemic. We aimed to describe the changes in volume and characteristics of OHCA patients and resuscitations in one urban EMS system. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all recorded atraumatic OHCA in Marion County, Indiana, from January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 and from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020. We described patient, arrest, EMS response, and survival characteristics. We performed paired and unpaired t -tests to evaluate the changes in those characteristics during COVID-19 as compared to the prior year. Data were matched by month to control for seasonal variation. Results The total number of arrests increased from 884 in 2019 to 1034 in 2020 ( p = 0.016). Comparing 2019 to 2020, there was little difference in age [median 62 (IQR 59–73) and 60 (IQR 47–72), p = 0.086], gender (38.5% and 39.8% female, p = 0.7466, witness to arrest (44.3% and 39.6%, p = 0.092), bystander AED use (10.1% and 11.4% p = 0.379), bystander CPR (48.7% and 51.4%, p = 0.242). Patients with a shockable initial rhythm (19.2% and 15.4%, p = 0.044) both decreased in 2020, and response time increased by 18 s [6.0 min (IQR 4.5–7.7) and 6.3 min (IQR 4.7–8.0), p = 0.008]. 47.7% and 54.8% ( p = 0.001) of OHCA patients died in the field, 19.7% and 19.3% ( p = 0.809) died in the Emergency Department, 21.8% and 18.5% ( p = 0.044) died in the hospital, 10.8% and 7.4% ( p = 0.012) were discharged from the hospital, and 9.3% and 5.9% ( p = 0.005) were discharged with Cerebral Performance Category score ≤ 2. Conclusion Total OHCA increased during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with the prior year. Although patient characteristics were similar, initial shockable rhythm, and proportion of patients who died in the hospital decreased during the pandemic. Further investigation will explore etiologies of those findings.

Solving the opioid crisis requires immediate, innovative, and sustainable solutions. A number of promising strategies are being carried out by U.S. states and territories as part of their Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) plans funded through the 21st Century Cures Act, and they provide an opportunity for researchers to assess effectiveness of these interventions using pragmatic approaches. This paper describes a pilot study of Project Planned Outreach, Intervention, Naloxone, and Treatment (POINT), the intervention that served as the basis for Indiana's STR-funded, emergency department (ED)-based peer specialist expansion that was conducted in preparation for a larger, multisite pragmatic trial. Through the pilot, we identified, documented, and corrected for challenges encountered while implementing planned study protocols. Per the project's funding mechanism, the ability to move to the larger trial was determined by the achievement of 3 milestones: (1) successful replication of the intervention; (2) demonstrated ability to obtain the necessary sample size; and (3) observe a higher level of engagement in medication for addiction treatment in the POINT group compared to standard care. Overall implementation of the study protocols was successful, with only minor refinements to proposed procedures being required in light of challenges with (1) data access, (2) recruitment, and (3) identification of the expansion hospitals. All three milestones were reached. Challenges in implementing protocols and reaching milestones resulted in refinements that improved the study design overall. The subsequent trial will add to the limited but growing evidence on ED-based peer supports. Capitalizing on STR efforts to study an already scaling and promising intervention is likely to lead to faster and more sustainable results with greater generalizability than traditional, efficacy-focused clinical research.

No abstract