Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41132454›Full record

ArticleBritish paramedic journal2025

Missed opportunities of feedback for emergency ambulance staff: a mixed-methods diary study.

Caitlin Wilson, Luke Budworth, Gillian Janes, Rebecca Lawton, Jonathan Benn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British paramedic journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Caitlin WilsonUniversity of Leeds; Yorkshire Ambulance Service Research Institute; Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9854-4289.
Luke BudworthYorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group; NIHR Yorkshire & Humber Patient Safety Research Collaboration ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2905-6011.
Gillian JanesManchester Metropolitan University; Anglia Ruskin University ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1609-5898.
Rebecca LawtonUniversity of Leeds; Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group; NIHR Yorkshire & Humber Patient Safety Research Collaboration ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5832-402X.
Jonathan BennUniversity of Leeds; Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group; NIHR Yorkshire & Humber Patient Safety Research Collaboration ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5919-9905.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Providing feedback to emergency ambulance staff on performance or patient outcomes may improve care quality and professional development. Current feedback provision in ambulance services is limited and staff desire more feedback; however, we do not know what feedback would be most useful. This study aimed to determine the quality of feedback received by emergency ambulance staff, describe self-directed learning activities performed after receiving feedback (e.g. 'reflected on what exactly I did right/wrong') and identify situations where ambulance staff desired enhanced feedback. Methods: An observational mixed-methods study was used. Emergency ambulance staff delivering face-to-face patient care in the United Kingdom's National Health Service completed a baseline survey and diary entries between March and August 2022. Diary entries were event contingent and were collected when a participant identified that they had received feedback or desired feedback but had not received it. Free-text qualitative responses were categorised using content analysis before being included in the quantitative analyses. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Baseline surveys were completed by 299 participants; 100 participants submitted 374 feedback-desired diary entries and 105 participants submitted 538 feedback-received diary entries. Ambulance staff expressed a statistically significant preference for patient-outcome feedback (77.8% [95% CI 74.0, 82.1]), provided by non-ambulance healthcare professionals (70.7% [66.2, 75.3]) and delivered electronically (54.0% [48.9, 59.4]). Feedback was particularly desired for cases involving neurological (17.1%) and cardiovascular (16.6%) conditions and non-conveyed patients (11.5%). Self-directed learning activities post feedback included reflection (61.5%), considering alignment with own judgement (41.1%) and discussions with colleagues (37.0%). Conclusion: The study identifies critical gaps in current feedback practices within ambulance services and provides directions for feedback designs that would enhance existing systems and approaches. Training programmes should educate ambulance staff on effective feedback utilisation and management of both positive and negative feedback. Cultivating a supportive feedback culture within ambulance services is crucial for fostering continuous professional growth and improving patient care outcomes.

Indexed as

ambulancesfeedbacksurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41132454
PMCPMC12543068

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.