Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39350235›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2024

Consensus on innovations and future directions of community first responder schemes in United Kingdom: a national nominal group technique study.

Gupteswar Patel, Vanessa Botan, Viet-Hai Phung, Ian Trueman, Mehrshad Parvin Hosseini, Murray D Smith, Roderick Ørner, Julie Pattinson, Zahid Asghar, Elise Rowan and 7 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Gupteswar PatelCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Vanessa BotanCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Viet-Hai PhungCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Ian TruemanCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Mehrshad Parvin HosseiniCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Murray D SmithAberystwyth Business School, Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion, UK.
Roderick ØrnerCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Julie PattinsonCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Zahid AsgharCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Elise RowanCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Robert SpaightEast Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Craig MortimerSouth East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex, UK.
Amanda BrewsterCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Pauline MountainCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Joshua MillerWest Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Martina BrownSouth Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Bicester, UK.
Aloysius Niroshan SiriwardenaCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK. nsiriwardena@lincoln.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2484-8201

Funding

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme NIHR127920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimWe aimed to achieve consensus among NHS and community stakeholders to identify and prioritise innovations in Community First Responder (CFR) schemes.

methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study, adopting a modified nominal group technique with participants from ambulance services, CFR schemes and community stakeholders. The 1-day consensus workshop consisted of four sessions: introduction of innovations derived from primary research; round-robin discussions to generate new ideas; discussion and ranking of innovations; feedback of ranking, re-ranking and concluding statements. Innovations were ranked on a 5-point Likert scale and descriptive statistics of median and interquartile range calculated. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically.

resultsThe innovations found were classified into two categories: process innovations and technological innovations. The process innovations included six types of innovations: roles, governance, training, policies and protocols, recruitment, and awareness. The technological innovations included three aspects: information and communication; transport; and health technology. The descriptive statistics revealed that innovations such as counselling and support for CFRs (median: 5 IQR 5,5), peer support [5 (4,5)], and enhanced communication with control room [5 (4,5)] were essential priorities. Contrastingly, innovations such as the provision of dual CFR crew [1.5 (1,3)], CFR responsibilities in patient transport to hospital [1 (1,2)], and CFR access to emergency blue light [1 (1,1.5)] were deemed non-priorities.

conclusionsThis article established consensus on innovations in the CFR schemes and their ranking for improving the provision of care delivered by CFRs in communities. The consensus-building process also informed policy- and decision-makers on the potential future change agenda for CFR schemes.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesEmergency RespondersHumansState MedicineUnited KingdomCommunity First ResponderInnovationsNominal group techniqueUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID39350235
PMCPMC11443681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.