MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086508748 · doi:10.1136/emj.2008.066126

Evaluation of attitudes and perceptions of key clinical stakeholders regarding out-of-hospital diagnosis and treatment of ST elevation myocardial infarction patients using a region-wide survey

2009· article· en· W2086508748 on OpenAlexaffabout
Naheed Rajabali, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Sunil Sookram, Scot H. Simpson, Robert C. Welsh

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrehospital Emergency CareMedical emergencyLikert scaleEmergency medicineEmergency medical servicesMyocardial infarctionEmergency physicianEmergency departmentFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), prehospital management (PHM) may improve clinical outcomes through a reduction in reperfusion delay. The purpose of this study was to evaluate perceptions among healthcare stakeholder groups relating to the barriers and facilitators of implementing a PHM programme. METHODS: A 25-question cross-sectional survey, using a four-point Likert scale assessing barriers and facilitators of PHM, was distributed to paramedics, cardiologists, emergency physicians and emergency nurses within the Edmonton region, where prehospital STEMI treatment is established. The proportion of responses on each question was compared and differences between groups were determined using chi(2) and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: 57% (355/619) of subjects responded: 69% paramedics, 50% cardiologists, 54% emergency physicians and 45% emergency nurses. A majority believed PHM reduced treatment delays in both rural (96-100%) and urban (86-96%) areas, while decreasing patient mortality (paramedics 97%, cardiologists 74%, emergency physicians 85%, emergency nurses 88%). Regarding the capability of paramedics to deliver PHM, paramedics 25%, cardiologists 33%, emergency physicians 67%, and emergency nurses 47% stated that urban paramedics are better equipped and trained than rural paramedics. Although 81% of paramedics supported the possibility of PHM delivery without physician overview, 0% of cardiologists, 98% of emergency physicians and 95% emergency nurses agreed. A majority (71-88%) favoured mandatory signed informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: While stakeholders agreed on the benefits of PHM, perceptual differences existed on paramedics' ability to deliver PHM without physician overview. Addressing real and perceived barriers through communication and educational programmes may enhance PHM within this healthcare region and facilitate the implementation of PHM programmes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Medicine JournalSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207