MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909422831 · doi:10.1080/10903127.2019.1568651

Existing Science on Human Factors and Ergonomics in the Design of Ambulances and EMS Equipment

2019· article· en· W2909422831 on OpenAlexaff
Bronson Du, Michelle Boileau, Kayla Wierts, Sue Hignett, Steven L. Fischer, Amin Yazdani

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsConestoga CollegeMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionEmergency medical servicesHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencySAFERScopusPersonal protective equipmentPoison controlWork (physics)Mass-casualty incidentMedical equipmentCrashMEDLINEComputer scienceNursingComputer securityEngineeringCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel face a disproportionally high risk for fatality and injury due to the nature of their work; and current ambulance and EMS equipment design standards do not adequately safeguard EMS personnel from sacrificing personal safety for patient care, a known human factors and ergonomic (HFE) design challenge. Despite the desire to include HFE interventions or considerations into a standard, the effectiveness of existing HFE interventions for EMS is unclear. Objective: Therefore, this study aimed to synthesize the peer-reviewed literature on the design features of patient compartments and EMS equipment that affect EMS personnel’s performance or well-being. Methods: A scoping review methodology was applied to systematically search and screen for relevant articles, and extract data. Three databases (EmBase, Scopus, and PubMed) were searched, and search results were screened for articles that pertained to the performance or well-being of EMS personnel when interacting with the patient compartment or its associated equipment. Results and Discussion: Of the 4,125 search results, 48 relevant articles were retained, and then sorted into one of 3 categories: general design, patient handling, and patient transport. It was concluded that, although research has progressed over the past 15 years, more research, development, and resources are needed. Newer generations of ambulances have not been shown to be safer during collisions and there is a knowledge gap in how occupants and contents of a patient compartment behave during a collision. Crash-tests have been performed with restrained occupants and supplies; however, that scenario is unrealistic in the field. While the existing literature provided initial ideas and innovations for improving the HFE of patient handling and patient transport, it is important for future research to convey findings in a manner that can be used to inform design standards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital Emergency CareSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207