Is There A Role For Paramedics In Primary Care In Ireland: An Exploratory Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<div class="O"><p><strong>Background</strong></p><p>Paramedics are reported to be the most underutilised profession working within rural areas, due to the paucity of service requirements. (O’ Meara et al 2012). Infrequent opportunities to practice particular skills can lead to reduction in levels of confidence and competence that can have significant risk and safety ramifications for practitioners and patients. (Mulholland et al 2014). Traditionally paramedic practice provides emergency care and transport within the community, but current ambulance service models within rural Ireland may be inefficient and contributing to hospital overcrowding and increased healthcare costs. (Lightfoot, 2015). Alternative models of healthcare are implemented within alternative rural jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada that aims to address issues of practitioner underutilisation, skill retention and healthcare personnel shortages. (Wilson, et al 2009).</p><p><strong>Rationale</strong></p><p>Ireland’s population is ageing, with increased co-morbidities and reports of current and predicted workforce shortages in general practice. (Smyth et al 2017). With rising demands on general practitioners (GPs), measures to increase their supply and retention has become a challenging problem. Potential solutions to this will require immediate change to established work practices, to cater for current and predicted healthcare needs. (H.S.E, 2015). Paramedics with advanced skills (APs) could alleviate some of the shortages identified and enhance paramedic profile by transferring some tasks deemed appropriate from GPs to APs within both urban and rural communities. This process is globally known as task shifting where some competencies are transferred to alternative healthcare practitioners with less training. (WHO, 2007).</p><p><strong>Aim</strong></p><p>To ascertain the attitudes and opinions of paramedics and GPs associated with GEMS - UL, towards a new concept of joint collaboration in primary care that should be of mutual benefit to both groups, and also to identify potential barriers.</p><p><strong>Methodology</strong></p><p>Questionnaire survey of graduate Paramedics and General Practitioners associated with University of Limerick Graduate Entry Medical School and Paramedic Studies to identify competencies that GPs would deem appropriate to reassign to APs and ascertain both groups’ opinions towards this new concept of joint collaboration and practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p>Studies report successful outcomes in similar models of joint collaboration to support shortages of GPs in rural healthcare. (Reaburn, 2017). Collaboration on this scale has been shown to be beneficial for enhancing the paramedic profession within the wider healthcare system while providing essential support within primary care and general practice. Potential benefits have been reported with reduced emergency department admissions and early intervention in the management of chronic disease. (Blacker et al, 2009).</p></div>
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».