ArticleJournal of injury & violence research2022
A model to explain the challenges of emergency medical technicians' decision making process in emergency situations: a grounded theory.
Article in Journal of injury & violence research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting the Number of Consultations by Emergency Medical Teams During Disasters Using a Constant Attenuation Model: Analyzing the Data of 6 Disasters in Japan and Mozambique Between 2016-2020.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- The role of human factors in paramedics' clinical judgement - A modified Delphi study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Lived experiences of Iranian prehospital emergency technicians in facing women's emergencies: a phenomenological study.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo manage life-threatening conditions and reduce morbidity and mortality, pre-hospital's on-scene decision making is an influential factor. Since pre-hospital's decision making is a challenging process, it is necessary to be identified this process. This study was conducted to explore the model of Iranian emergency medical technicians' decision making in emergency situations.
methodsThis study was applied through grounded theory method using direct field observations and semi-structured interviews. Purposeful sampling with 26 participants including 17 emergency medical technicians including dispatchers, physicians of medical directions, managers and 1 representative for court affairs was performed. Interviews were lasted from October 2018 to July 2019. Corbin and Strauss approach, 2015 (open, axial and selective coding) were used to analyze data.
resultsA paradigm model was developed to explain the relationships among the main categories. Decision making in the context of fear and concern was emerged as the core category. Unclear duties, insufficient authorities and competencies as well as lack of enough decision making's protocols and guidelines were categorized as casual conditions. Other important categories linked to the core category were interactions, feelings and "customer focus approach". Action-interaction strategies were taken by Emergency Medical technicians lead to some negative consequences that can threaten clinical outcome and patient safety.
conclusionsBased on the finding of this study, Emergency Medical technicians' decision making in the context of fear and concern, as the core concept of this model, lead to decrease in quality of the pre-hospital services, stakeholders' dissatisfaction, hospital emergency units' overload, decrease in reputation of the Emergency Medical Technicians, threat to patient clinical outcome and patient safety. To prevent of these negative consequences, facilitation of the Emergency Medical Technicians' on-scene decision making is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.