Podcast#16 “RESPECT”

respect-ecgIn an earlier post I was moaning about my fellow Paramedics, being their own worse enemies, quick to complain about the lack of any progress within our profession, but slow to act when given the chance to do something. Participating in clinical research is the one tool open to us to do so. Potentially if we miss an opportunity to push ourselves to the front of the queue along with all the other white coats in the clinical research credibility sweepstakes we will continually be relegated to the back of the class when it comes to important discussions. I was afraid that our profession was missing the boat and worried that many others feel research is well outside our reach.

Richard Pilbery, a Paramedic doing a Masters degree in clinical research would disagree with me. Richard is currently running a clinical pilot looking into an issue that we come across on a daily basis, the ECG print out. Richard, eager to demonstrate that clinical research driven by Paramedics with help from key institutions is more than possible, invites me to take part in his grass roots trial to establish how much of an effect the computer generated interpretation on an ECG would have in my clinical decision making. Join us in this podcast as we discuss the RESPECT trial and how more Paramedics should be getting into research. Link here for the RESPECT trial site.

Listen to Podcast#16: “RESPECT trial”

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Can’t launch the audio file? Download Podcast#16 :RESPECT

The Show Notes:

The show notes are made available to signed up members of the members messroom area. Links to Journal articles and slides are provided in support of the podcast

[amember_protect levels=’Bronze,Silver,Basic,Gold’ user_action=’hide’ visitor_action=’error’ visitor_error=’amember_error_regtopodcast’]

1/ Website Reference:

The R.E.S.P.E.C.T trial website:

Recognition of STEMI by Paramedics and the Effect of Computer inTerpretation
The “RESPECT” is a study to test whether the computer interpretation messages printed on 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) affect paramedics’ recognition of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Before commencing the study, it is important to check that everything works and also calculate some of the statistics that are required. To do this, we are running a pilot study, which is open to all paramedics registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC, formerly the HPC). To find out more and perhaps even take part, have a read through the participant information sheet.

2/ Journal Reference:
“Paramedic perceptions of the feasibility and practicalities of prehospital clinical trials: a questionnaire survey”
In this paper, of the 300 Paramedics recruited into the survey, only 96 returned the form. I have a link to the abstract of this paper that Richard and I refer to here

3/ Web Reference:
“National Institute for Health Research”

Clinical research is, and has always been, at the very heart of the NHS. Only by carrying out research into “what works” can we continually improve treatment for patients, and understand how to focus NHS resources where they will be most effective.
In 2006, the Department of Health set up the National Institute for Health Research to create a world-class health system within the NHS, and the Clinical Research Network is part of this wider organisation. Website

My Guests Bio:

20130404-144131.jpgBio: Richard Pilbery
Richard is a paramedic working in Sheffield, South Yorkshire and a student at the University of Sheffield, studying for a Masters degree in clinical research. In his spare time he writes a monthly CPD series for ambulance staff called Standby CPD, looks after his CPD portfolio builder (http://www.resuscitate.me.uk) and occasionally teaches paramedic students at Sheffield Hallam University. He is also editor-in-chief of the forthcoming UK 7th edition of Nancy Caroline’s Emergency Care in the Streets, which is out soon!


4 Responses to “Podcast#16 “RESPECT””

  1. davidfitz9876 says:

    Hi Richard,

    Very much enjoyed your podcast. We’ve recently completed a study where we offered two alternative formats for completing questionnaires. The first a paper-based version and the other electronic/online. A sealed cardboard ‘post box’ was placed in each ambulance station for completed paper forms. Interestingly 90% of respondents completed the paper version. I was very surprised at this and had presumed the electronic questionnaire would provide easier access and would therefore be favoured. Every day is a learning day though and has emphasised that sometimes paper is better than electronic. Good luck with the Masters! BW David

  2. tricky999 says:

    Which is precisely why we need to conduct research, since intuition is often wrong! Out of interest, what was the research question for this study?

    • davidfitz9876 says:

      Hello tricky999, I wasn’t suggesting anything was wrong with electronic methods, only that it wasnt as popular in our case. But i suppose what I’ve learned is the need for user/participant involvment at an early stage in any study. What works well in one geographical area may not work so well in another. We always try to pilot any work we do which helps to ensure whatever you do is user friendly, accessible etc etc. The questionnaires were evaluating opinions on a recently introduced intervention to improve follow-up care in post hypoglycaem patients.

  3. tricky999 says:

    Morning all, I have a feeling that my description of the computer interpretation’s sensitivity and specificity was not helpful, and possibly incorrect. I have since found a brilliant article from the BMJ, which explains sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values and negative predictive values in plain English. Free to access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC200804/pdf/bmj32700716.pdf