ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Design and psychometric evaluation of the Emergency Medical Services Safe Care Scale (EMSSCS): a mixed-method study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Designing and Psychometric Evaluation of Professional Competency Assessment Tools in Educating Accident and Emergency Managers.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProviding safe care by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel at the stressful scene of an incident is one of the most crucial factors influencing the preservation and enhancement of patient health. However, culture, attitudes, and social norms can influence the provision of care at the scene of an accident. Consequently, evaluating safe care practices at incident scenes is imperative and necessitates a specialized assessment tool. Presently, there is a lack of reliable and valid instruments for measuring safe care practices among EMS personnel. Therefore, this study was designed and conducted to develop and psychometrically evaluate the Emergency Medical Services Safe Care Scale (EMSSCS).
methodsThis investigation employed a mixed-methods design with a sequential exploratory approach, conducted from January 2024 onwards across the southwestern, western, and southeastern regions of Iran. The study was bifurcated into two distinct phases. In the initial phase, a conventional content analysis method was employed to scrutinize the narratives elicited from 41 EMS personnel. In the subsequent phase, the instrument's validity and reliability were rigorously assessed.
resultsSafe care provided by EMS personnel was defined as the management of the incident scene, efficient clinical skills, and effective interaction aimed at delivering principled and safe patient care. Subsequently, based on the derived conceptual framework, a safe care instrument was designed with 44 items across three dimensions. During the qualitative and quantitative content validity 11 items, and face validity 3 items were deleted. Exploratory and confirmatory validity of this scale was approved in three dimensions: "incident scene management" (12 items), "efficient clinical skills" (10 items), and "effective interaction" (8 items). The scale's reliability was reported at 0.95 using Cronbach's alpha method.
conclusionThe Emergency Medical Services Safe Care Scale (EMSSCS), demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. Consequently, senior managers in pre-hospital emergency services can utilize this instrument to evaluate safe care practices among pre-hospital emergency medical technicians. They can identify the most appropriate strategies, including educational interventions, to enhance safe care provision at incident scenes when necessary. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.