MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073742558 · doi:10.3109/10903127.2013.818178

Simulation-based Assessment of Paramedics and Performance in Real Clinical Contexts

2013· article· en· W2073742558 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCentennial CollegeThe Wilson CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryMedicineObservational studyCompetence (human resources)Objective structured clinical examinationRating scaleReliability (semiconductor)Ambulance serviceNursingEmergency medicineMedical emergencyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to seek validity evidence for simulation-based assessments (SBA) of paramedics by asking to what extent the measurements obtained in SBA of clinical competence are associated with measurements obtained in actual paramedic contexts, with real patients. METHODS: This prospective observational study involved analyzing the assessment of paramedic trainees at the entry-to-practice level in both simulation- and workplace-based settings. The SBA followed an OSCE structure involving full clinical cases from initial patient contact to transport or transfer of care. The workplace-based assessment (WBA) involved rating samples of clinical performance during real clinical encounters while assigned to an emergency medical service. For each candidate, both assessments were completed during a 3-week period at the end of their training. Raters in the SBA and WBA settings used the same paramedic-specific seven-dimension global rating scale. Reliability was calculated and decision studies were completed using generalizability theory. Associations between settings (overall and by dimension) were calculated using Pearson's correlation. RESULTS: A total of 49 paramedic trainees were assessed using both a SBA and WBA. The mean score in the SBA and WBA settings were 4.88 (SD = 0.68) and 5.39 (SD = 0.48), respectively, out of a possible 7. Reliability for the SBA and WBA settings reached 0.55 and 0.49, respectively. A decision study revealed 10 and 13 cases would be needed to reach a reliability of 0.7 for the SBA and WBA settings. Pearson correlation reached 0.37 (p = 0.01) between settings, which rose to 0.73 when controlling for imperfect reliability; five of seven dimensions (situation awareness, history gathering, patient assessment, decision making, and communication) reaching significance. Two dimensions (resource utilization and procedural skills) did not reach significance. CONCLUSION: For five of the seven dimensions believed to represent the construct of paramedic clinical performance, scores obtained in the SBA were associated with scores obtained in real clinical contexts with real patients. As SBAs are often used to infer clinical competence and predict future clinical performance, this study contributes validity evidence to support these claims as long as the importance of sampling performance broadly and extensively is appreciated and implemented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.390 · 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