ArticleBritish paramedic journal2025
Providing feedback to frontline paramedics involved in research: a service evaluation within Yorkshire Ambulance Service.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Many clinical trials within ambulance services require trained frontline paramedics to directly recruit or enrol eligible patients. Research paramedics may then review study documents and often contact recruiting paramedics to provide feedback or obtain missing data. Using the example of the Paramedic Analgesia Comparing Ketamine and MorphiNe in trauma (PACKMaN) study, we aimed to evaluate the provision of feedback by the Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) research team to recruiting paramedics. Methods: This was a service evaluation using a qualitative design. Data collection was conducted in January 2023 and consisted of a focus group and document analysis. The focus group lasted one hour and involved nine YAS research staff involved in feedback provision. Preliminary results were presented to focus group members to facilitate member checking. Reviewed documents included written feedback sent by the local research team and a standard operating procedure on incidental clinical errors. Data were analysed using the framework method. Results: Research paramedics provided recruiting paramedics with feedback on 'research study activities', such as missing data, (in) eligible patients (not) enrolled or study protocol (not) followed. Feedback on 'clinical practice' not related to research activities, but incidentally discovered, was not considered within the remit of research paramedics. Barriers to effective feedback provision were the lack of awareness in recruiting paramedics that feedback would be provided and a perception that unsolicited feedback is mostly negative. Using different formats to provide feedback and engaging in a dialogue with recruiting paramedics was seen to facilitate more meaningful feedback. Conclusion: Training for recruiting paramedics should highlight that performance and documentation will be scrutinised as part of their involvement in the clinical trial. Although flexibility of local teams regarding feedback format and delivery was important, researchers planning interventional studies in ambulance services may wish to consider the impact of different ways of working with frontline clinicians in their protocol development and study evaluation.
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.