MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989403735 · doi:10.3109/10903127.2013.792890

Expanding Paramedic Scope of Practice in the Community: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2013· review· en· W1989403735 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentennial CollegeSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScope (computer science)Scope of practiceMEDLINEIntensive care medicineMedical educationHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Paramedics are an important health human resource and are uniquely mobile in most communities across Canada. In the last dozen years, challenges in the delivery of health care have prompted governments from around the globe to consider expanding the role paramedics play in health systems. Utilizing paramedics for the management of urgent, low-acuity illnesses and injuries has been coined "community paramedicine," but the role, safety, and effectiveness of this concept are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a systematic review of the international literature to describe existing community paramedic programs. METHOD: We used the Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews. An international group of experts developed a search strategy and a health information specialist executed this search in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL starting January 1, 2000. We included all research articles in the English language that reported a research methodology. We excluded commentaries and letters to the editor. Two investigators independently screened citations in a hierarchical manner and abstracted data. RESULTS: Of 3,089 titles, 10 articles were included in the systematic review and one additional paper was author-nominated. The nature of the 11 articles was heterogeneous, and only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) was found. This trial showed community paramedicine to be beneficial to patients and health systems. The other articles drew conclusions favoring community paramedicine. CONCLUSION: Community paramedicine research to date is lacking, but programs in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada are perceived to be promising, and one RCT shows that paramedics can safely practice with an expanded scope and improve system performance and patient outcomes. Further research is required to fully understand how expanding paramedic roles affect patients, communities, and health systems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.345 · 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