MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964856307 · doi:10.3109/10903127.2011.598625

EMS Provider Determinations of Necessity for Transport and Reimbursement for EMS Response, Medical Care, and Transport: Combined Resource Document for the National Association of EMS Physicians Position Statements

2011· review· en· W1964856307 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Millin, Lawrence H. Brown, Brian Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReimbursementEmergency medical servicesMedicineMedical emergencyPaymentLaypersonHealth careBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With increasing demands for emergency medical services (EMS), many EMS jurisdictions are utilizing EMS provider-initiated nontransport policies as a method to offload potentially nonemergent patients from the EMS system. EMS provider determination of medical necessity, resulting in nontransport of patients, has the potential to avert unnecessary emergency department visits. However, EMS systems that utilize these policies must have additional education for the providers, a quality improvement process, and active physician oversight. In addition, EMS provider determination of nontransport for a specific situation should be supported by evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that the practice is safe. Further, EMS systems that do not utilize these programs should not be financially penalized. Payment for EMS services should be based on the prudent layperson standard. EMS systems that do utilize nontransport policies should be appropriately reimbursed, as this represents potential cost savings to the health care system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital Emergency CareSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207