ArticleBritish paramedic journal2025
Perceived benefits and limitations of remote decision-making support for ambulance clinicians in a single NHS trust.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Remote decision-making support (RDMS) systems for on-scene ambulance clinicians aim to improve patient safety, avoid unnecessary admissions and promote appropriate referrals. In the relative absence of previous research, this qualitative study explored the perceived benefits and limitations of a well-established RDMS system in a single NHS ambulance trust. The system described involves advanced paramedic practitioners (APPs) supporting colleagues via an emergency-crew advice telephone line (ECAL). Methods: Internally circulated invitations resulted in a convenience sample of 27 participants attending online meetings for data collection. Eight meetings, with a mean duration of 56 minutes, were recorded and anonymised during transcription. A critical realist, experiential approach to thematic analysis was employed on transcripts to produce findings. Results: Participants reported various patterns of engagement with ECALs, but experienced paramedics were the least involved. ECALs were perceived to benefit patient safety and clinical development, although their influence on appropriate care delivery was considered to be more limited. The information systems, capacity and capability of community care pathways varied considerably across the region, hindering urgent care navigation. Additionally, a cultural shift to normalise collaborative decision making was required, which might be enabled by more proactive intervention, but only if ECAL interactions sustained trust in their effectiveness. Some participants had experience of initiatives where co-located community and emergency department clinicians augmented RDMS provision and perceived that this addressed many of the limitations identified. Conclusion: This study suggests that RDMS is perceived as beneficial to patient safety and appropriate care delivery, and that APPs who are familiar with their region and with the clinicians on scene are well suited to provide this support. Collaborative decision making requires honest and open interaction to be effective and needs to be more widely accepted as standard clinical practice. Improving the consistency and interoperability of community care pathways will maximise their value, and inter-professional collaboration may facilitate this.
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.