Paramedic Myocardial Infarction Care with Fibrinolytics: a Process Map and Hazard Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the supporting published evidence for prehospital fibrinolysis (PHF) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients by paramedics, the complexity of the process has not been rigorously explored in a stepwise approach. The objectives of this study were to (1) map the process of care that occurs during EMS management of STEMI with administration of PHF from 911 call to transfer of care to the emergency department and (2) to identify steps that could adversely affect patient safety or clinical outcome. METHODS: A Health Care Failure Mode and Effect Analysis was conducted. Steps were identified and organized into major call phases. Each step was categorized as a decision, technical skill, or task. The role required to perform each was identified: emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) or primary (PCP) or advanced care paramedic (ACP). The map was validated against a video-taped STEMI scenario. Once finalized, the steps with potential for risk to safety or outcome (hazard modes (HMs)) were identified. HMs were scored by study team consensus for probability to occur and likely severity of impact to the patient (minimum = 2, maximum = 16, ≥8 considered high risk). RESULTS: The map consisted of 18 phases and 167 steps, of which 37 (22.2%) were decisions, 67 (40.1%) were technical skills, and 63 (37.7%) were tasks. Ten steps could be completed by an EMD (6.0%), 76 (45.5%) by a PCP, and 81 (48.5%) by an ACP. The phases with the most steps were initial treatment, n = 31 steps (18.0%), and reperfusion therapy, n = 30 steps (18.0%). Sixty-eight HMs were identified, mean score 4.54 (SD 2.32), five of which scored eight or above (7.3%). The highest scoring HMs were history-taking, obtaining 12-lead, and transmitting 12-lead (all scores = 12). The phases with the most HMs were initial treatment (n = 12 HMs) and reperfusion therapy (n = 12 HMs). CONCLUSIONS: In this mapping study of STEMI calls in which paramedics administer fibrinolytics, the process was found to be complex, containing many steps, but relatively few individual steps were highly hazardous to patient care or safety. This study has enabled specific actions to target the highest scoring hazard modes, in an effort to improve paramedic practice and patient safety for EMS STEMI patients. Key words: emergency medical services; myocardial infarction; fibrinolytic agents; ambulances; process map.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".