Paramedic-Delivered Teleconsultations: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Progression in the field of paramedicine has resulted in the development of novel roles within the profession, including the role of advanced paramedics providing teleconsultations for frontline paramedics. Little is known about the experience of paramedics providing or receiving teleconsultations. This scoping review aimed to investigate paramedic perceptions of physician and paramedic-delivered teleconsultations. Methods A scoping review of MEDLINE, CINAHL and EBM Reviews as well as paramedic-specific journals and the grey literature was conducted. Articles were included if they examined advanced paramedics, paramedics, emergency ambulance crew or emergency medical technicians receiving teleconsultations, or physicians and advanced paramedics providing teleconsultations. Results A total of 7461 unique citations were identified. Two citations were ultimately included in the review. One study examined the delivery of teleconsultations by advanced paramedics and one by physicians, both from the perspective of paramedics. Paramedics delivering teleconsultations generally considered the experience to be positive, while those receiving paramedic-delivered teleconsultations felt the level of advice was appropriate and assisted in expanding their own knowledge base. Paramedics receiving physician-delivered teleconsultations reported variable understanding of the unique challenges of out-of-hospital care and tension in the relationship between paramedics and physicians. Conclusion Little literature was identified examining the perceptions of paramedics delivering or receiving physician-delivered or paramedic-delivered teleconsultations. Given the continuing expansion of teleconsultation programs for out-of-hospital staff, this represents a significantly understudied area.
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 | 0.010 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".