Funding global emergency medicine research-from seed grants to NIH support
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of Emergency MedicineDocument Type
Letter to the EditorPublication Date
2016-12-01Keywords
Emergency carefunding
global emergency medicine
grants
international emergency medicine
public health
research
Emergency Medicine
International Public Health
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND: Funding for global health has grown significantly over the past two decades. Numerous funding opportunities for international development and research work exist; however, they can be difficult to navigate. The 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference on global health and emergency care identified the need to strengthen global emergency care research funding, solidify existing funding streams, and expand funding sources. RESULTS: This piece focuses on the various federal funding opportunities available to support emergency physicians conducting international research from seed funding to large institutional grants. In particular, we focus on the application and review processes for the Fulbright and Fogarty programs, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Career development awards, and the Medical Education Partnership Initiative (MEPI), including tips and pathways through each application process. CONCLUSIONS: Lastly, the paper provides an index that may be used as a guide in determining whether the amount of funding provided by a grant is worth the effort in applying.Source
Int J Emerg Med. 2016 Dec;9(1):27. Epub 2016 Oct 18. Link to article on publisher's site
DOI
10.1186/s12245-016-0121-8Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/28444PubMed ID
27757807Related Resources
Rights
Copyright © The Author(s). 2016. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.Distribution License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Scopus Count
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright © The Author(s). 2016. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Outpatient Emergency Department Utilization: Measurement and Prediction: A DissertationApproximately half of all emergency department (ED) visits are primary-care sensitive (PCS) – meaning that they could potentially be avoided with timely, effective primary care. Reducing undesirable types of healthcare utilization (including PCS ED use) requires the ability to define, measure, and predict such use in a population. In this retrospective, observational study, we quantified ED use in 2 privately insured populations and developed ED risk prediction models. One dataset, obtained from a Massachusetts managed-care network (MCN), included data from 2009-11. The second was the MarketScan database, with data from 2007-08. The MCN study included 64,623 individuals enrolled for at least 1 base-year month and 1 prediction-year month in Massachusetts whose primary care provider (PCP) participated in the MCN. The MarketScan study included 15,136,261 individuals enrolled for at least 1 base-year month and 1 prediction-year month in the 50 US states plus DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. We used medical claims to identify principal diagnosis codes for ED visits, and scored each according to the New York University Emergency Department algorithm. We defined primary-care sensitive (PCS) ED visits as those in 3 subcategories: nonemergent, emergent but primary-care treatable, and emergent but preventable/avoidable. We then: 1) defined and described the distributions of 3 ED outcomes: any ED use; number of ED visits; and a new outcome, based on the NYU algorithm, that we call PCS ED use; 2) built and validated predictive models for these outcomes using administrative claims data; 3) compared the performance of models predicting any ED use, number of ED visits, and PCS ED use; 4) enhanced these models by adding enrollee characteristics from electronic medical records, neighborhood characteristics, and payor/provider characteristics, and explored differences in performance between the original and enhanced models. In the MarketScan sample, 10.6% of enrollees had at least 1 ED visit, with about half of utilization scored as PCS. For the top risk group (those in the 99.5th percentile), the model’s sensitivity was 3.1%, specificity was 99.7%, and positive predictive value (PPV) was 49.7%. The model predicting PCS visits yielded sensitivity of 3.8%, specificity of 99.7%, and PPV of 40.5% for the top risk group. In the MCN sample, 14.6% (±0.1%) had at least 1 ED visit during the prediction period, with an overall rate of 18.8 (±0.2) visits per 100 persons and 7.6 (±0.1) PCS ED visits per 100 persons. Measuring PCS ED use with a threshold-based approach resulted in many fewer visits counted as PCS, discarding information unnecessarily. Out of 45 practices, 5 to 11 (11-24%) had observed values that were statistically significantly different from their expected values. Models predicting ED utilization using age, sex, race, morbidity, and prior use only (claims-based models) had lower R2 (ranging from 2.9% to 3.7%) and poorer predictive ability than the enhanced models that also included payor, PCP type and quality, problem list conditions, and covariates from the EMR, Census tract, and MCN provider data (enhanced model R2 ranged from 4.17% to 5.14%). In adjusted analyses, age, claims-based morbidity score, any ED visit in the base year, asthma, congestive heart failure, depression, tobacco use, and neighborhood poverty were strongly associated with increased risk for all 3 measures (all P<.001).
-
Unconditional care in academic emergency departmentsRecent news stories have explicitly stated that patients with symptoms of COVID-19 were "turned away" from emergency departments. This commentary addresses these serious allegations, with an attempt to provide the perspective of academic emergency departments (EDs) around the Nation. The overarching point we wish to make is that academic EDs never deny emergency care to any person.
-
Emergency Department Nurses' Experiences of Violent Acts in the WorkplaceEmergency department nurses are at high risk for violence in the workplace (Keely, 2002; Fernandez et al., 1998; Nachreiner et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 1999). It is estimated that between 52% and 82% of emergency nurses will experience physical violence and 100% of emergency department nurses will experience non-physical violence in their careers. Despite this fact, there are limited studies examining workplace violence among this vulnerable group (Fernandez et al., 1998; Levin et al., 1998). Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine the experiences of emergency department nurses with workplace violence. Levin et al.’s (2003) Ecological Occupational Model (EOHM) was used to guide this study. Four focus groups were conducted with 27 nurses who represented different types of emergency departments (rural community facility to large urban Level 1 trauma center). Results of the study suggested that the majority of participants (96%) experienced some form of work-related violence and 75% had attended at least one violence education class. The major themes of frustration and powerlessness emerged from the data. Sub themes included professional conflict while caring for violent patients, personal detachment as an emotional survival mechanisms, and feelings of victimization. Additional factors contributing to workplace violence included: personal attributes of the nurse, the workplace, and the community where the emergency department was located. These study results have potential to guide intervention development aimed at reducing workplace violence in the emergency department setting.
