Dispatcher Recognition of Stroke Using the National Academy Medical Priority Dispatch System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Emergency medical dispatchers play an important role in optimizing stroke care if they are able to accurately identify calls regarding acute cerebrovascular disease. This study was undertaken to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the current national protocol guiding dispatcher questioning of 911 callers to identify stroke (QA Guide version 11.1 of the National Academy Medical Priority Dispatch System). METHODS: We identified all Los Angeles Fire Department paramedic transports of patients to University of California Los Angeles Medical Center during the 12-month period from January to December 2005 in a prospectively maintained database. Dispatcher-assigned Medical Priority Dispatch System codes for each of these patient transports were abstracted from the paramedic run sheets and compared to final hospital discharge diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 3474 transported patients, 96 (2.8%) had a final diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack. Dispatchers assigned a code of potential stroke to 44.8% of patients with a final discharge diagnosis of stroke or TIA. Dispatcher identification of stroke showed a sensitivity of 0.41, specificity of 0.96, positive predictive value of 0.45, and negative predictive value of 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: Dispatcher recognition of stroke calls using the widely employed Medical Priority Dispatch System algorithm is suboptimal, with failure to identify more than half of stroke patients as likely stroke. Revisions to the current national dispatcher structured interview and symptom identification algorithm for stroke may facilitate more accurate recognition of stroke by emergency medical dispatchers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".