A/Prof. Paul Simpson1,2,Dr Robin Pap1,2, Associate Professor Nigel Barr2,3, Ms Amy Hutchison4, Mr Matthew Reardon8, Mr Harry Reeves7, Ms Michelle Thompson9, Associate Professor Louise Reynolds6, Professor Peter O’Meara5, Associate Professor Linda Ross2,5
1Western Sydney University, 2Australasian College of Paramedicine, 3University of the Sunshine Coast, 4Queensland University of Technology, 5Monash University, 6Australian Catholic University, 7NSW Ambulance, 8Queensland Ambulance Service, 9University of Adelaide
Dr. Paul Simpson is an Associate Professor of Paramedicine at Western Sydney University, and Editor-in-Chief of the international peer-reviewed journal ‘Paramedicine’. He is a registered paramedic who worked in a jurisdictional service for 28 years, and is now working within the paramedicine private sector, though admittedly is a bit rusty these days.
Presentation Title and Overview: Research agenda and priorities for Australasian paramedicine: a Delphi consensus study
Introduction
The systematic development of a research agenda is essential for coordinated, collaborative, and efficient research endeavours in any discipline. The aim of this study was to create and prioritise a stakeholder-informed, consensus-derived Australasian paramedicine research agenda.
Methods
The study utilised a modified Delphi consensus method consisting of three phases. Phase 1, the findings of which were previously published, consisted of a national survey of Australasian paramedicine stakeholders to inform the subsequent consensus process. Phase 2 contained three Delphi rounds involving key paramedicine profession stakeholders to generate a research agenda. Panellists were asked to rate their agreement with the inclusion of each item using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement signalled by ‘Strongly Agree’ and ‘Agree’ responses. Phase 3 involved one additional round of voting to determine importance and thus establish priorities amongst the final list of agenda items.
Results
There were 341 responses to the survey in Phase1 and thematic analysis produced a provisional agenda consisting of 109 perceived research priorities. Sixty-three key paramedicine profession stakeholders were invited to Phases 2 and 3, of which 56 (88.9%) completed all three rounds in Phase 2, and 43 (68.3%) completed the final Phase 3. Thirty-seven items achieved consensus and were subsequently prioritised constituting the final research agenda. To facilitate presentation and dissemination agenda items were clustered into the following areas: ‘Safety & Quality’, ‘Systems & Processes’, ‘Expanded Roles and Practice Settings’, ‘Education & Training’, ‘Workplace Culture & Wellness’, and ‘Clinical Pathways & Models of Care’.
Conclusion
Using a modified Delphi consensus method and drawing from a broad range of stakeholders, a 37-item Australasian paramedicine research agenda with item prioritisation was developed.
The agenda serves to inform industry and other key stakeholders to guide their research endeavours ultimately leading to meaningful and tangible impact within the paramedicine profession.