Title: Research activity in emergency departments: A literature review of its impact on quality of care and patient satisfaction
Abstract:
Background: Emergency Departments (EDs) are often the first point of contact for patients, playing a crucial role in acute care delivery. Increasingly, EDs are also becoming hubs for clinical research, despite the challenges posed by their fast-paced and unpredictable environments. Research activity within EDs not only advances evidence-based practice but may also improve the quality of care and patient satisfaction. This poster explores whether EDs engaged in research activity deliver better outcomes than those without.
Methods: A structured literature review was conducted across PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, complemented by a snowball search. The review applied inclusion and exclusion criteria focusing on studies evaluating the relationship between research activity, patient outcomes, and satisfaction in acute healthcare settings. Although no studies specifically addressed EDs, ten papers were identified, of which two provided the strongest evidence base: Majumdar et al. (2008), assessing outcomes in U.S. hospitals participating in clinical trials, and Jonker et al. (2020), analysing NHS research activity and its association with staff and patient perceptions of care.
Findings: The evidence suggests that research-active hospitals demonstrate higher quality of care and improved patient satisfaction. Majumdar et al. (2008) found hospitals with higher clinical trial participation showed significantly reduced in-hospital mortality and better adherence to clinical guidelines. Jonker et al. (2020) demonstrated that patients admitted to more research-active NHS hospitals reported greater confidence in staff, better information provision, and higher satisfaction, while staff reported improved engagement and teamworking. These complementary findings highlight both the objective and experiential benefits of embedding research into clinical practice.
Discussion: Although evidence specific to EDs remains limited, parallels can be drawn from wider hospital settings. Research-active environments cultivate a culture of evidence-based practice, staff collaboration, and innovation, all of which are essential in the high-pressure ED setting. Observations from practice reinforce these findings, suggesting that embedding research activity in EDs facilitates timely interventions, optimises resource use, and enhances patient trust. However, further longitudinal studies focusing on EDs are required to establish causality and guide policy.
Conclusion: Research engagement in acute care settings is associated with improved clinical outcomes and higher patient satisfaction. Extending research activity within EDs has the potential to enhance care delivery, strengthen staff-patient relationships, and improve patient experiences. Hospitals without active research programmes should be encouraged to integrate research activity into ED practice to advance both quality of care and patient satisfaction.
