An alternative model of pre-hospital care for 999 patients who require non-emergency medical assistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose With the increasing demand on ambulance services, paramedics are tasked to arrange as much out of hospital care as possible, to develop integrated systems of care and work with hundreds of different providers – all in the 15 minutes allocated for assessment. A UK ambulance trust is navigating and leading much of this work as one of the first trusts to implement a general practitioner referral policy as an alternate to direct conveyance. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach Here the authors discuss the referral scheme, examine the limited evidence available and discuss what is needed to influence prospective success of implementing this scheme in other trusts. Findings Limited evidence for these schemes are described, however there is a clear gap in critical appraisal and methodologically rigorous evidence needed to implement these schemes in other ambulance schemes. Originality/value In order to facilitate collaboration of healthcare services and to minimize the burden of increasing numbers of patients, communication and discussion of alternate routes of care is crucial. This viewpoint piece is one of the first to emphasize the potential benefits of such schemes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".