MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034869431 · doi:10.1002/emp2.12123

What influences safety in paramedicine? Understanding the impact of stress and fatigue on safety outcomes

2020· article· en· W3034869431 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Donnelly, Paul Bradford, Matthew Davis, Cathie Hedges, Doug Socha, Peter Morassutti, Sathish Chandra Pichika

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsWindsor Regional HospitalWestern UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeeMedicineStressorDemographicsGeneralized estimating equationClinical psychologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The purpose of this study was to build on extant research linking fatigue to safety outcomes in paramedicine by assessing the influence of a multiplicity of workplace stressors, including chronic and critical incident stresses on safety outcomes. Methods A cross-sectional survey was deployed to 10 paramedic services in Ontario. Validated survey instruments measured operational and organizational chronic stress, critical incident stress, post-traumatic stress symptomatology (PTSS), fatigue, safety outcomes, and demographics. Analysis of covariance assessed associations of workplace stresses with safety outcomes and corroborated findings using hierarchical linear model and generalized estimating equations (GEE) by taking into account paramedic service when assessing the proposed associations. A non-responder survey was conducted to asses for demographic differences in those who did and did not complete the survey. Results This survey had a response rate of 40.5% (n = 717/1767); 80% of paramedics reported an injury or exposure to pathogen, 95% reported safety compromising behaviors, and 76% reported medical errors. In the GEE analyses, paramedic injury was significantly related to fatigue (0.13, SE = 0.06, P = 0.020), critical incident stress (0.03, SE = 0.01, P < 0.01), and PTSS (0.03, SE = 0.01, P < 0.01). Safety compromising behaviors were significantly associated with fatigue (0.37, SE = 0.06, P < 0.01), organizational stress (0.06, SE = 0.01, P < 0.01), and critical incident stress (0.01. SE = 0.01, P = 0.017). Medication errors were significantly related to fatigue (0.12, SE = 0.05, P < 0.01). Finally, the bivariate analysis showed increased stress factors and fatigue was associated with increased safety outcomes. Conclusion These findings illustrate that a host of different stressors may influence safety-related behaviors. For those interested in safety, these findings point to the need for a holistic focus on fatigue and stress in paramedicine.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians OpenSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207