PP97 Delineating Key Components Of Community Paramedicine Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Population growth, epidemiological and demographic transition, and a shortage of healthcare workers are affecting health care systems in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US). Community paramedicine (CP) programs provide a bridge between primary care and emergency care to address the needs of patients with low acuity but lack of access to primary care. However, how to capture the key characteristics of these programs and present them in a meaningful way is still a challenge. The objective of this presentation is to identify and describe the characteristics of currently existing CP programs in the four countries to inform policy-making on CP program development in Alberta. Methods: Information was obtained from systematic reviews, health technology assessments, general reviews, and government documents identified through a comprehensive literature search. The characteristics of the CP programs are described using a framework originally developed in Australia with three categories: (i) the primary health care model, (ii) the health integration model (in Australia, called the substitution model), and (iii) the community coordination model. Results: In general, Australia emphasizes rural/remote paramedics, whereas Canada, the UK, and the US implement expanded paramedic practice within different environments including rural, remote, regional, and metropolitan settings. Extended care provider programs have been intensively investigated and widely implemented in the UK. While the identified CP programs vary in terms of program components, designation of providers, skill mix, target population, and funding model, the majority of these CP programs fall under the primary health care category of the Australian framework. Conclusions: Transitioning from hospital-based to community-based health care requires careful consideration of all key factors that could contribute to future program success. Delineating key components of CP programs using the Australian framework will help Alberta decision-makers design, develop, and implement appropriate CP programs that adequately address local needs.
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 | 0.015 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".