Is paramedic palliative care different in rural compared to urban settings: A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nova Scotia (NS) Paramedics have been provided with palliative care training, allowing for care at home without the requirement of transport to the emergency department. It is largely unknown if rural populations have different experiences with paramedic palliative support services (transport vs no transport assessed/treated). AIM: The aim of this research was to describe differences between Paramedics Providing Palliative Care in rural versus urban settings, specifically paramedic call characteristics (reason, level of responder) and outcome (transport, non-transport), challenges, and benefits. DESIGN: A mixed methods study including triangulation of: (1) quantitative analysis of paramedic responses for patients of the palliative care program, (2) qualitative interviews with paramedics, and (3) mailed survey for patients/families. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and comparative thematic analyses for the qualitative data. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were the providers and user of the Paramedics Providing Palliative Care at Home Program in Nova Scotia, Canada. RESULTS: = 0.024). Paramedics described challenges of older rural homes having less accessible layouts and trip hazards, and themselves as the connection point for the health system. CONCLUSION: Rurality has an impact on the use and call outcomes for patients receiving paramedic palliative care. Rural areas have fewer resources to support remaining home, structural barriers, and strong connection to home and community. Paramedics play an important role in rural access to palliative 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".