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

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.

Prioritizing the antecedents of employer branding using fuzzy AHP: an extent analysis approach

“…According to studies, the size of the expert panel depends on the researcher’s demand and is also situational specific (Akins et al , 2005). More often, convenience samples are chosen by the researchers depending on the availability of the experts and resources (Lancaster et al , 2023). Studies have been conducted with a small panel comprising 5 to 6 experts (Strasser et al , 2005) and a large sample of 1,142 experts (Barnette, 1978).…”

Development and validation of medical adhesive‐related skin injury risk assessment scale at peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site in oncology patients

“…There is no consensus on the sample size of expert consultation, but in general, the number of experts is 10–50. According to research, more than 30 experts have little impact on the accuracy of the inquiry results (Lancaster et al, 2023 ). Therefore, considering the actual recovery rate, 32 experts are recruited.…”