The Introductory Consensus Conference Follow‐up Issue: Toward Fulfillment of the Research Agendas of Prior Consensus Conferences

In 2000, the first Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference was convened. The topic, “Errors in Emergency Medicine,” was interposed between two well-known Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports of direct relevance: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System1 (1999) and Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century2 (2001). This foreshadowed the great degree of relevance and timeliness that would characterize future consensus conferences, each of which has as its primary goal the development of a research agenda that will guide the science of the topic at hand. This year, Academic Emergency Medicine convened its 11th consensus conference, “Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care,” in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine in Phoenix, Arizona. The proceedings will appear in the December issue of this journal. In this fashion, another timely research agenda will be developed, refined, and disseminated. These consensus conferences have not occurred in a vacuum. They have, to a demonstrable degree, had their intended effect of stimulating research. This month’s issue of the journal is the first to be devoted primarily to dissemination of research and concepts that have grown from prior consensus conferences. There is every reason to believe that a new and useful tradition has been established. The topics of the prior AEM consensus conferences have been: 2000: Errors in Emergency Medicine 2001: The Unraveling Safety Net 2002: Assuring Quality 2003: Disparities in Emergency Care 2004: Emergency Medicine Information Technology 2005: Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research 2006: The Science of Surge 2007: Knowledge Translation in Emergency Medicine: Establishing a Research Agenda and Guide Map for Evidence Uptake 2008: The Science of Simulation in Health Care: Defining and Developing Clinical Expertise 2009: Public Health in the Emergency Department: Surveillance, Screening, and Intervention 2010: Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care A number of the consensus conferences have received significant financial support from Canadian, American federal, other public, and various private sources. Focusing on the conferences of 2007, 2008, and 2009 is illustrative. The 2007 conference received financial support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and among the featured speakers who took time from their busy schedules to join us in Chicago was Carolyn Clancy, the director of the AHRQ since 2003. Support also came from the National Center for Research Resources, an organization promoting the Clinical and Translational Science Awards program within the United States National Institutes of Health, and the Knowledge Translation Workshops and Symposia Grant Program of the Canadian Institutes of Health.3 The 2008 conference received primary financial support from AHRQ, the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, MedEdPORTAL (an electronic publication of the American Association of Medical Colleges), and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Over 30 other medical organizations and academic departments nationwide provided smaller degrees of support. In addition, unrestricted educational grants were received from major manufacturers of medical simulator hardware and software.4 The 2009 conference was primarily supported by a grant from AHRQ and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health, with secondary support from the National Institute of Mental Health; the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); “Join Together” of the Boston University School of Public Health; and the Departments of Emergency Medicine of Boston University, Brown University, Emory University, George Washington University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, the University of Michigan, and Yale University. This conference featured participation from Dr. Richard Denisco from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Ralph Hingson from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Dr. Amy Goldstein from the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr. James Heffelfinger from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Richard Saitz from Boston University, and Dr. Jack Stein, director of SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.5 Given the significant and continuing financial support of the agencies and foundations that have supported our consensus conferences, it seems prudent to provide them with proof that their efforts have been followed by meaningful responses to the numerous calls for research contained within the consensus conference summary statements and proceedings. In other words, this issue of our journal can be thought of as the first installment of a series of “itemized receipts” that will document how the financial support provided to enable the consensus conferences has been worthwhile. The first several consensus conferences did not enjoy such external financial support, but as the size and scope of the sessions grew, so did the need for funding. Our journal will continue to present these annual consensus conferences into the foreseeable future, and they will require the expenditure of significant resources of time and finances. To be able to document, from the pages of our own journal, that prior consensus conferences have had the desired effect of stimulating relevant research may increase the likelihood that the organizers of future conferences can continue to achieve similar external financial support. Looking forward, it is hoped that an even greater number of research efforts will be inspired by our consensus conferences and that much of that research will appear in our journal. It must be noted that not all of this month’s articles were submitted by authors who had the express intent that they appear in this special consensus conference follow-up issue. The Associate Editors and Senior Associate Editors, as well as Kathleen Seal, our Technical Editor, have referred a number of manuscripts submitted to the journal, but not submitted specifically for appearance in this issue, to the attention of the consensus conference guest editors group. In other words, our work group had to “prime the pump” somewhat. It is hoped that this will not be necessary in the future and that a greater number of manuscripts will be submitted with the goal that they appear in the consensus conference follow-up proceedings. A suggestion going forward relates to the probability that the research agendas set forth at a given consensus conference may eventually become “dated.” Toward that end, it is possible that future consensus conference follow-up issues might only accept manuscripts inspired by consensus conferences of the past 3 to 5 years. This issue contains a total of 15 manuscripts, with the following representation: 2002: one manuscript 2003: two manuscripts 2004: two manuscripts 2005: zero manuscripts 2006: two manuscripts 2007: three manuscripts 2008: one manuscripts 2009: four manuscripts I would be remiss not to thank several people without whom this edition of the journal would not have been possible. The Guest Assistant Editors, who functioned most capably as decision editors, included Gail D’Onofrio, Nicole Deiorio, Lynne Richardson, and Terri Schmidt. I am indebted to them for their efforts. It would be misleading to state that this process evolved exactly as first envisioned, and I must also thank these Guest Assistant Editors for their patience with the evolving processes. David Cone gave me the opportunity to more truly understand the extreme degree of knowledge and organization he brings to his role as Editor-in-Chief. Finally, but most importantly, I thank Kathleen Seal for her most capable guidance and patience. I have learned to an even greater degree than before what a valuable resource she is to our journal.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.