MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412506329 · doi:10.1177/27536386251360833

National consensus on the capabilities that inform the role of advanced practice paramedics: A Delphi study

2025· article· en· W4412506329 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueParamedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodDelphiPsychologyBusinessMedical educationMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advanced Practice Paramedics (APPs) are highly skilled paramedics who operate in diverse clinical settings both within and outside traditional ambulance services. International evidence demonstrates that APPs enhance patient outcomes in areas such as critical and primary care. In Australia, the expansion of APP roles and responsibilities has gained momentum; however, no nationally recognised framework exists to define their expected capabilities. This gap leads to inconsistencies in education, practice and role clarity. A standardised capability framework is therefore vital to guide the development, implementation and integration of APP roles within the Australian healthcare system. The primary aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive list of APP capabilities tailored to the Australian context through expert consensus. A modified Delphi approach was used across four iterative phases to establish consensus. An expert panel of clinical, academic, organisational and regulatory/governance leaders was identified via the Knowledge Resource Nomination Worksheet. Participants reviewed, rated and refined proposed APP capabilities derived from international frameworks and relevant literature. Consensus was defined as a minimum of 70% agreement among participants. Of the experts invited, 43 consented to participate in the Delphi process. A final set of 33 capabilities, achieving 96% overall consensus, was developed. These capabilities spanned four key domains: Clinical Practice (14), Leadership and Management (10), Education (7) and Research (2). Iterative feedback ensured each capability was clear, relevant and aligned with the Australian healthcare context. The resulting capability framework provides a robust foundation for standardising APP roles within Australia, promoting consistency in education, practice and professional expectations. This framework not only supports the national advancement of APPs but may also serve as a model for international adaptation, contributing to the global development and recognition of advanced practice roles in paramedicine.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.404 · 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