How were emergency medicine’s research priorities chosen in 2017? This report and podcast introduction describe the James Lind Alliance and RCEM process, bringing patients, clinicians and researchers together to rank unanswered questions and guide future research beyond individual interests.
Who should decide which medical research clinicians can read and trust? Reflecting on a 2016 SMACC debate, Simon Carley questions journal paywalls and traditional publishing incentives, while exploring open access, post-publication review and the unresolved problem of sustainable alternatives.
An archived 2016 call for patients, the public and professionals to help prioritise emergency medicine research. The post describes the RCEM–James Lind Alliance process as it moved from a shortlist of 60 questions towards selecting ten research priorities.
Can a single very low high-sensitivity troponin T result, combined with a non-ischaemic ECG, rule out myocardial infarction? Rick Body discusses a 2016 TRAPID-AMI analysis, its promising diagnostic performance and why excluding infarction does not automatically make discharge appropriate.
How should new information change a clinical diagnosis? This introduction to Bayesian thinking uses a chest-pain example to explore updating probabilities, reconsidering alternatives after negative tests and avoiding the false reassurance of ruling out only the first diagnosis considered.
Conference ReportsCritical Care
Rich Carden and Chris Gray reflect on SMACC Dublin in 2016 from a trainee perspective. Their account connects clinical debate and diagnostic reasoning with fear, wellbeing, gender equity and the personal encounters that made the conference a reflective as well as educational experience.
Practical perspectives on trauma care and team leadership.
Explore the series →