Paramedics’ Behavior Patterns When Transferring Non-Mobile Patients from the Ground to a Stretcher
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Transferring non-mobile patients from the ground to a stretcher represents one of the riskiest tasks for musculoskeletal disorders among emergency medical technicians–paramedics (EMT-Ps), but there is little information available on how they perform in real-life work situations. Methods: This study aimed to describe EMT-Ps’ patterns of behavior observed from field data and highlight safe work operations. A secondary analysis was conducted on 27 videos collected during EMT-Ps’ responses to live calls. Contextual variables (workspace and external assistance), operations during the preparation subtask (move patient or interfering objects and adjust stretcher’s height and position), and movements and postures related to the transfer subtask were extracted from the videos. Results: The results demonstrate that despite stratification based on similar contextual factors (equipment and limited workspace), EMT-Ps’ behavior varied between interventions during the preparation and transfer subtasks. Several operations to adjust the patient–stretcher configuration before the lifting phase were carried out to facilitate patient transfer, but these were not always optimal from a safety perspective. Strategies such as fast loading (1 out of 4) and the use of external assistance (6 out of 15) were beneficial in certain circumstances. Conclusions: EMT-Ps demonstrated their ability to analyze the situation, organize accordingly, and adapt their behavior by applying these safety skills.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".