Learning about behavioural emergencies: an evaluation of paramedic textbooks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Individuals with behavioural emergencies (mental health or substance-use crises) are being seen more frequently in emergency departments. Therefore, emergency medical service (EMS) providers are increasingly being called upon to respond to such cases. However, research in paramedic education on this topic is limited. Problem: Very little is known about the quality of EMS provider training in this field. While the National EMS Education Standards Instructional Guidelines (NEMSES-IG) outlines a curriculum, no research has examined the textbooks commonly used to cover this. Research question: To what extent do paramedic textbooks include content outlined by the United States (US) NEMSES-IG on the management of behavioural emergencies? Methods: The current study surveyed the textbooks for 305 accredited paramedic training programmes in the US, identifying the 5 most common texts. The textbooks' content was compared by two trained coders against the NEMSES-IG. Results: Findings revealed that the textbooks did not fully cover the components of the NEMSES-IG. Of the five textbooks, chapters on behavioural emergencies varied from covering between 55% and 74% of the educational standards. Conclusions: This study reveals that many of the textbooks are lacking in the area of behavioural emergency management. It highlights the need to improve paramedic education with a greater focus on evidence-based management practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".