MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409970272 · doi:10.1177/27536386251336760

Towards a person-centred holistic consultation framework for paramedics attending non-acute presentations: A multidisciplinary commentary

2025· article· en· W4409970272 on OpenAlexaff
Robbie King, Angela Martin, Alan M Batt, Nigel Barr, C. Jinshong Hwang, Bill Lord, Peter O’Meara, Louise Reynolds, Staffan Hammarbäck, F Shaun Hosein, Julie Kempton, Brendan Shannon

Bibliographic record

VenueParamedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachPsychologyMedical educationEngineering ethicsMedicineNursingPsychotherapistSociologyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Traditional rapid-assessment models may not be fully suited for the complex non-acute presentations that paramedics commonly encounter. As paramedicine evolves to meet non-acute patient needs, extended practice community paramedic roles are emerging to deliver holistic and collaborative community-based healthcare. Purpose: This commentary outlines the need for a person-centred holistic clinical consultation framework for paramedics attending complex non-acute presentations. A framework that provides a structured and systematic process for paramedics, particularly those who are transitioning into extended practice community paramedic roles, to guide them in conducting holistic person-centred assessments. This commentary highlights the importance of understanding the biopsychosocial factors influencing patient wellbeing and provides a conceptual foundational framework as an example for the paramedicine community to further develop and validate. Relevance: A standardised systematic consultation approach supports more effective communication, shared decision-making, and safe care planning. Such a framework aligns with professional standards to enhance interprofessional collaboration and improve health literacy and equity for structurally marginalised patients. Outcome: We propose a nine-phase clinical consultation framework for non-acute presentations to improve accuracy in clinical reasoning, paramedic confidence, and patient outcomes. Through patient engagement, trust-building, and addressing impacts of the social determinants of health, this framework aims to refine paramedic practice for complex non-acute presentations and support integrated care models. Conclusion: The proposed patient consultation framework aims to guide paramedics toward a structured, comprehensive approach for assessing non-acute presentations bridging the gap between rapid emergency-focused assessment and community-based care for complex and often undifferentiated non-acute presentations. As paramedics develop confidence in exploring each patient's individual biopsychosocial circumstances, they will be better positioned to enhance patient experiences and outcomes, further contributing meaningfully to their continuum of care.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.173
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.173
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.020
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0070.014
Research integrity0.0320.047
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParamedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207