Facilitators of expanded and extended scope of paramedic practice: what makes them work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Better integration of health services and redefinition of health workforce roles through expanding and extending traditional scope of clinical practice have been explored nationally and internationally. This paper aims to extend our earlier work by examining models of expanded and extended scope of paramedic practice for attributes which facilitate such a practice. Methods An exploratory multi-case study analysis of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom expanded and extended paramedic practices were analysed. Results Successful models of advanced practice harness the capacity and personality of the paramedic practitioner, and are supported by enabling infrastructures, specifically: professional development/ education; clinical guideline and policy (boundary); access to physical infrastructure and clinical support from senior medical practitioners; and, ability to directly refer to other health services (service integration). The scope of advanced practice is however influenced by individual employers’ capacity, perceived needs and preference/ prioritises. The potential for advanced paramedic practice is equally applicable to urban as well as rural Australia. The Council of Ambulance Authorities’ Professional Competency Standard provides the form and functions for building on advanced paramedic practice. Recognition of such advanced paramedic practice provides a structure for professional growth, process for career progression and will support workforce retention. Conclusion The achievement of advanced knowledge and skills has positioned the paramedic profession to be recognized as a valuable clinician. The Council of Ambulance Authorities’ Professional Competency Standards provides the form and function for supporting advanced paramedic practice.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".