ArticlePloS one2025
The role of human factors in paramedics' clinical judgement - A modified Delphi study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Cross-sectional study of workplace violence prevention training among emergency medical services personnel and students.BMC emergency medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn emergency medical services (EMS), work environments and circumstances are variable and make clinical judgement challenging. Little is known about the human factors that can affect paramedics' clinical judgement in different situations. The aim of this study was to identify the key human factors that can affect paramedics' clinical judgement during EMS missions, according to paramedic experts.
methodsA three-round modified Delphi study was conducted in 2024. Advanced level paramedics with at least five years of experience in EMS across Finland were included in the study. In the first two rounds, experts evaluated statements using seven- and five-point Likert scales. In Round 3, experts selected the five most significant human factors affecting paramedics' clinical judgement and describe related situations. The consensus level was set at ≥ 75%, and open-ended responses were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsForty-seven experts participated in Round 1 and the response rates for Rounds 2 and 3 were 91% and 58%, respectively. After Round 1,16 statements were removed, 20 new statements were introduced, and four original statements were revised for Round 2. As consensus was not reached in the first two rounds, the analysis approach was modified to report medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). The experts identified 13 key human factors (IQR ≤ 1), with the four most significant being: 1) Unsafe locations involving a perceived risk to one's own and/or colleagues' work safety; 2) One's own attitude towards work tasks; 3) Support received from a physician when carrying out the mission, and 4) One's own and one's work partner's problem-solving ability in relation to the situation at the scene.
conclusionsThe present study found consensus on the four most significant human factors affecting paramedics' clinical judgement. Organisations need to provide adequate resources for situations involving occupational safety risks and provide support for paramedics' mental wellbeing.
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.