Contemporary evidence-based practice in Canadian emergency medical services: a vision for integrating evidence into clinical and policy decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nationally, emphasis on the importance of evidence-based practice (EBP) in emergency medicine and emergency medical services (EMS) has continuously increased. However, meaningful incorporation of effective and sustainable EBP into clinical and administrative decision-making remains a challenge. We propose a vision for EBP in EMS: Canadian EMS clinicians and leaders will understand and use the best available evidence for clinical and administrative decision-making, to improve patient health outcomes, the capability and quality of EMS systems of care, and safety of patients and EMS professionals. This vision can be implemented with the use of a structure, process, system, and outcome taxonomy to identify current barriers to true EBP, to recognize the opportunities that exist, and propose corresponding recommended strategies for local EMS agencies and at the national level. Framing local and national discussions with this approach will be useful for developing a cohesive and collaborative Canadian EBP strategy.
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 | 0.085 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".