MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312050553 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067476

Understanding the roles and work of paramedics in primary care: a national cross-sectional survey

2022· article· en· W4312050553 on OpenAlexaff
Georgette Eaton, Stephanie Tierney, Geoff Wong, Jason Oke, Veronika Williams, Kamal R Mahtani

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
FundersNiilo Helanderin SäätiöNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyPrimary careWork (physics)Family medicineEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to fill a current knowledge gap, namely the current scope of clinical role of paramedics in primary care, in relation to specific constructs such a level of education and clinical experience. SETTING: The survey was distributed to paramedics in primary care across the UK through the College of Paramedics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 341 surveys were returned (male=215). 90% of responses were from paramedics in England, 1.7% from paramedics in Northern Ireland, 4.6% from paramedics in Scotland and 2.9% from paramedics in Wales. This represents approximately 33% of the primary care paramedic workforce in England and Wales. Estimates for percentages in Northern Ireland and Scotland are unavailable due to the lack of workforce datasets capturing paramedics in primary care. RESULTS: Considerable variation was found in job titles, level of education and provision of clinical supervision of paramedics in primary care. Differing levels of practice were noted, despite guidance documents that attempt to standardise the role. Statistical analysis of quantitative data highlighted that relationships exist between paramedic clinical exposure in primary care, level of education, and ability of independently prescribe medicines and the extent to which clinical presentations are seen and examinations performed. However, free-text responses indicated that challenges in relation to access to further education and clinical supervision to support clinical development resulted in frustration for paramedics who work in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: As well as offering an insight into the demographics of the primary care paramedic work force, there is indication of the clinical scope of role undertaken in this setting. Based on our findings, we recommend changes to education and support, governance and legislation to ensure paramedics employed in primary care can work to achieve the full extent of their professional capability.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207