Expanding Paramedic Scope of Practice in the Community: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.027 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".