Clinical Performance Feedback to Paramedics: What They Receive and What They Need
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Performance feedback is not always well utilized in healthcare. To more effectively incorporate it, we used a discussion of current feedback systems to explore paramedics' perceived needs regarding feedback and to understand what feedback would improve their performance as healthcare providers. METHODS: We used a qualitative methodology with semistructured interviews of paramedics to explore perceptions and desires for feedback. Interpretive descriptive analysis was performed with continuous recruitment until thematic saturation was achieved. Themes were identified and a coding system was developed by two investigators separately and merged by consensus. The analysis was audited by a third investigator, and a member check was performed. RESULTS: Many different ideas were discussed that were analyzed to develop several major recurrent themes. One such theme was positive perception of feedback by paramedics. Despite the positive perceptions discussed, the shortcomings of current systems were also frequently discussed as were perceived barriers to receiving meaningful feedback. The idea of following up on patients' courses/outcomes also arose frequently during the interviews. In addition, feedback and its interaction with mental health emerged as a theme in terms of its potential for both positive and negative impact. Finally, suggestions about the future were also common with paramedics providing thoughts regarding what future systems could be developed or what changes could be made to provide them with meaningful feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show how paramedics perceive feedback, but still note how barriers may impair its uptake and how it may affect their mental health. Our participants also made recommendations about what they would want to see in future feedback systems. This information can provide the foundation to improve current feedback systems or structure new ones to allow paramedics to continue to develop themselves as healthcare professionals.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it