RCEM surveys on specific issues can be found on this page. Surveys from other organisations can be published here with the approval of the College Executive. If you would like your survey to be advertised here, please read this guidance and e-mail your request to

Currently running surveys:

1. Collaborative service evaluation survey - epilepsy and emergency service use

Deadline: 16 June 2019

The epilepsy group at the University of Liverpool are, along with colleagues from King’s College London and Sheffield, running a NIHR supported initiative called ‘Collaborate’.

There is momentum within the NHS to introduce an alternative care pathway that could help to reduce clinically unnecessary and avoidable emergency visits by those with established epilepsy, and improve subsequent ambulatory care.
The Collaborate initiative will use techniques such as discrete choice experiments and consensus workshops to harness this momentum and maximise the chances of success by ensuring any ‘alternative care pathway’ is acceptable to service users, professionals and feasible.

As part of the initiative, the group will be contacting a random sample of English emergency departments inviting them to complete a 10-minute online service evaluation. This will generate a national picture of what services and networks may be doing to reduce emergency visits for epilepsy and suspected seizures.

Should you receive an invitation relating to this evaluation we would be grateful if you would look upon it favourably. Partnership will be vital to the success of this worthwhile initiative.

If you have any questions, or would like further information about the Collaborate initiative, please contact the project research fellow, Dr Amy Mathieson at or 0151 795 7887.

2. RCEM Electronic Health Record Usability Survey

Deadline: 7 July 2019

Emergency Department IT systems has come under scrutiny following changes associated with the Emergency Care Data Set. It is notable that some systems and departments have had an easier transition than others. There is significant variation in the types of electronic health record (EHR) implemented. Some sites are completely paperless with all ED processes including documentation, investigation requests and prescribing performed in the EHR, some sites are almost entirely paper-based, but most somewhere in between. The implementation of systems provided by the same supplier has also been inconsistent, with different sites asking for the same functionality in the same system but being given two different versions.

The large volume of patients accessing Urgent and Emergency Care together with the data capture requirements has put a significant burden on clinicians and clerical staff, which can be mitigated by good system design.

A system with poor usability can represent a threat to patient safety, for instance in the context of poor interoperability when one system cannot ‘talk to’ another and critical health information is lost. A system with poor usability can also be a contributing factor to unfulfilling work life and consequent burn-out.1,2 Conversely a system that is easy to use helps make work being meaningful to staff.3 This can be seen in the disparity of the enjoyment people get from using a highly usable system such as a modern smartphone, and system with poor usability.

This survey is the first phase in a national quality improvement project developed by the RCEM Informatics Committee that will quantify front end users’ experience of IT systems. We will compare different systems and compare the same systems at different sites. We will use this information to create guidance for ED IT system implementation at a national level.

The assessment of usability is based on a modified version of the System Usability Scale (SUS).4 The SUS is a well-proven tool for measuring the usability. It consists of 10 questions, each with five response options from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree.



1.            Dyrbye LN, Burke SE, Hardeman RR, et al. Association of Clinical Specialty With Symptoms of Burnout and Career Choice Regret Among US Resident Physicians. Jama. 2018;320(11):1114-1130.

2.            Lee TH, Mylod DE. Deconstructing Burnout to Define a Positive Path Forward. JAMA Intern Med. 2019.

3.            Ashton M. Getting Rid of Stupid Stuff. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(19):1789-1791.

4.            System Usability Scale. Accessed 06/03/2019, 2019.


3. ED scaphoid fracture pathway

Deadline: 31 July 2019

The study aims to establish the current ED pathways used within the NHS for the confirmation of suspected scaphoid fracture taking into consideration the diversity of imaging practices and timings between clinical centres. Knowledge of this variation will help to underpin future research into clinical pathway outcomes, including clinical effectiveness and efficiency.

4. RCEM curriculum survey

Deadline: 20 September 2019

The General Medical Council (GMC), in its 2017 report ‘Excellence by Design’ has stated that the curricula for all medical specialties must be revised by 2021. The revised curricula must:

  • introduce Generic Professional Capabilities
  • be structured round a limited number of ‘Specialty Learning Outcomes’ - activities that describe the work of an independent clinician in each particular discipline
  • demonstrate stakeholder involvement in developing curricula
  • reduce assessment burden and avoid a ‘tick-box’ approach.

We are now formally seeking feedback on the draft Curriculum via a bespoke website and survey. The website is our proposal for displaying the curriculum in the future as well, so feedback on format as well as content is welcomed. 


These are open for your comments until 20 September 2019. After that the curriculum will be iterated based on feedback from the college and other stakeholders- including patients, lay representatives and other colleges. It will be submitted to the GMC for consideration in February 2020.

5. RCEM Urgent Treatment Centre Survey

Deadline: 30 August 2019

RCEM is attempting to obtain a national picture regarding the prevalence and distribution of Urgent Treatment Centres (UTCs) across the UK.  

The purpose of this survey is to build a picture of to what extent these UTCs (or their nearest equivalent) have been established and their interaction with, and impact on, the Emergency Department. 

Please complete one survey for each ED, rather than one per Trust.  Your assistance with this is extremely welcome and we will be publishing the results once collated. Thank you for taking the time to give us your views.

What is a UTC?
In England UTCs are defined as primary care led facilities with at least 12 hours of opening, 7 day service, access to investigations, and ability to access booked appointments. We understand that similar services exist or are being developed in the devolved nations and may be known by different names. Where we ask about UTCs, please include services that you recognise as meeting this criteria even if they are known by other names.

The stated aim in England is to standardise the health care services provided by the myriad of differently branded urgent care services such as minor injuries units, walk in centres etc.