We aimed to determine the feasibility of quality indicators (QIs) for prehospital advanced airway management (PAAM) from a provider point of view.

The study is a survey based feasibility assessment following field testing of QIs for PAAM.

The study was performed in two physician staffed emergency medical services in Switzerland.

42 of the 44 emergency physicians who completed at least one case report form (CRF) dedicated to the collection of the QIs on PAAM between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 participated in the study.

The data required to calculate the 17 QIs was systematically collected through a dedicated electronic CRF.

Primary outcomes were provider-related feasibility criteria: relevance and acceptance of the QIs, as well as reliability of the data collection. Secondary outcomes were effort to collect specific data and to complete the CRF.

Over the study period, 470 CRFs were completed, with a median of 11 per physician (IQR 4–17; range 1–48). The median time to complete the CRF was 7 min (IQR 3–16) and was considered reasonable by 95% of the physicians. Overall, 75% of the physicians assessed the set of QIs to be relevant, and 74% accepted that the set of QIs assessed the quality of PAAM. The reliability of data collection was rated as good or excellent for each of the 17 QIs, with the lowest rated for the following 3 QIs: duration of preoxygenation, duration of laryngoscopy and occurrence of desaturation during laryngoscopy.

Collection of QIs on PAAM appears feasible. Electronic medical records and technological solutions facilitating automatic collection of vital parameters and timing during the procedure could improve the reliability of data collection for some QIs. Studies in other services are needed to determine the external validity of our results.

The objective of this study was to explore the outcomes of research engagement (patient engagement, PE) in the context of qualitative research.

We observed engagement in two groups comprised of patients, clinicians and researchers tasked with conducting a qualitative preference exploration project in inflammatory bowel disease. One group was led by a patient research partner (PLG, partner led group) and the other by an academic researcher (RLG, researcher led group). A semistructured guide and a set of critical outcomes of research engagement were used as a framework to ground our analysis.

The study was conducted online.

Patient research partners (n=5), researchers (n=5) and clinicians (n=4) participated in this study.

Transcripts of meetings, descriptive and reflective observation data of engagement during meetings and email correspondence between group members were analysed to identify the outcomes of PE.

Both projects were patient-centred, collaborative, meaningful, rigorous, adaptable, ethical, legitimate, understandable, feasible, timely and sustainable. Patient research partners (PRPs) in both groups wore dual hats as patients and researchers and influenced project decisions wearing both hats. They took on advisory and operational roles. Collaboration seemed easier in the PLG than in the RLG. The RLG PRPs spent more time than their counterparts in the PLG sharing their experience with biologics and helping their group identify a meaningful project question. A formal literature review informed the design, project materials and analysis in the RLG, while the formal review informed the project materials and analysis in the PLG. A PRP in the RLG and the PLG lead leveraged personal connections to facilitate recruitment. The outcomes of both projects were meaningful to all members of the groups.

Our findings show that engagement of PRPs in research has a positive influence on the project design and delivery in the context of qualitative research in both the patient-led and researcher-led group.