Paramedics working in general practice: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> The term ‘paramedic’ has traditionally related to a healthcare professional trained to provide pre-hospital emergency care; however, paramedics are increasingly taking on novel additional non-emergency roles. General practice is facing unprecedented demand for its services related to rising expectations, an aging society and increased prevalence of chronic disease. Paramedics may be recruited to work in general practice to meet some of these demands. We undertook a scoping review to map the current literature considering paramedics working in general practice and inform follow-on research. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> We employed the six-stage scoping review framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. Our research question was ‘to identify the scope of practice, nature of training/qualifications, challenges faced, and impacts of paramedics working in general practice’. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> After searching PUBMED (Medline, n = 487), EMBASE (n = 536) and the Cochrane Library (n = 0) in June 2020, we identified eleven full-text articles that met our inclusion criteria. The literature suggests that paramedics have diverse skills that enable roles within general practice, some of which are context specific. Additional training is considered necessary to facilitate the transition from emergency care to general practice. We found no research that quantitatively assessed the impact of paramedics working in general practice on healthcare expenditure or patient health outcomes. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> There is a paucity of empiric scientific literature considering paramedic working in general practice. Further research is needed to inform training pathways, the structure of clinical practice and to measure outcomes. </ns4:p>
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".