Is the Calgary-Cambridge Model of consultation a suitable communication tool for students and newly qualified paramedics? A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Calgary-Cambridge Model (C-CM), developed by Kurtz and Silverman in 1996, is a communication tool developed for doctors. Since its publication, it has been adopted by various healthcare professionals; however, no previous research has been identified that evaluates its use in paramedic practice. This study aims to explore the experience of students and newly qualified paramedics (NQPs) applying the C-CM in practice, and establish their experiences and perceptions of its suitability as a communication tool in the pre-hospital environment. Methods: This MSc research project, conducted in April-May 2021, applied qualitative methods with thematic analysis to written reflections and semi-structured interview transcripts discussing the implementation of C-CM in paramedic practice. A convenience-quota sample of 11 participants, consisting of third-year paramedic students and recent NQPs, were recruited. This research is reported using Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) reporting guidelines. Results: Eleven participants were recruited in total; nine consented to reflective writing analysis and interviews, two consented to writing analysis only. Analysis of the writing samples allowed for a deductive approach to the interview plan. Participants consisted of seven males and four females. All eleven participants (ten British and one Indian) spoke English as a first language. Ages ranged from 18 to 59 years. Career status was 46.2% third-year students and 53.8% NQPs. Four major themes were identified: barriers to implementation of the C-CM in practice; impact of C-CM on paramedic practice; C-CM as a teaching and learning tool in paramedic practice; and adaptation of C-CM for paramedic practice. Conclusions: Participants suggested that implementation of C-CM leads to improved structure and shared decision-making; however, adaptions to make it more paramedic-focused would be welcomed. The diversity of patients and their preferences can make its implementation challenging, and the negative feedback received from experienced ambulance staff was a significant concern to participants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".