Paramedic education programmes must draw upon a wide range of teaching, learning and assessment techniques in order to ensure that graduating students possess the necessary skills and qualities for their profession ( Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2013 ). Theory and practice must come together as part of a reflective learning process at a number of points within the education cycle, in order to identify crucial learning points, and areas for self-improvement from the practice setting. One way of achieving this is via action learning (AL). This small-scale study uses a mixed methods approach to investigate whether or not student paramedics from a UK university, as participants within action learning sets (ALS), felt that that they were a useful educational tool to use within a Foundation Degree in Paramedic Science. Students reported many benefits to their educational experience having participated in ALS, including developments in personal, academic and professional areas. The research also showed how the AL process could be improved in areas such as AL induction, providing AL members with team working skills as well as supporting students with communication and leadership challenges during ALS.
It would seem hard to imagine how you could draw a comparison between a commercial airline pilot struggling to land a stricken plane in a storm and a paramedic fighting to save the life of a patient in cardiac arrest. Although very different circumstances, they both have one thing in common: that is, they are both vulnerable to a condition known as ‘the human factor’. Examples of where Human Factors (HFs) exist within the prehospital profession can be various, common examples are environmental distractions e.g. noise from bystanders, mobile phones, machines, or more simply caused by lack of sleep and inadequate nourishment. This article discusses human factors within the prehospital environment and will highlight the benefits of being able to recognize and act upon them, with a specific focus upon the impact they can have on the ambulance practitioner operating in the field. It discusses human factors training and recognizes the role of crew resource management (CRM) and its importance within the prehospital profession.
The ‘Sepsis Six’ bundle was promoted as a deliverable tool outside of the critical care settings, but there is very little data available on the progress and change of sepsis care outside the critical care environment in the UK. Our aim was to compare the yearly prevalence, outcome and the Sepsis Six bundle compliance in patients at risk of mortality from sepsis in non-intensive care environments. Patients with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) of 3 or above and suspected or proven infection were enrolled into four yearly 24-h point prevalence studies, carried out in fourteen hospitals across Wales from 2016 to 2019. We followed up patients to 30 days between 2016–2019 and to 90 days between 2017 and 2019. Out of the 26,947 patients screened 1651 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were recruited. The full ‘Sepsis Six’ care bundle was completed on 223 (14.0%) occasions, with no significant difference between the years. On 190 (11.5%) occasions none of the bundle elements were completed. There was no significant correlation between bundle element compliance, NEWS or year of study. One hundred and seventy (10.7%) patients were seen by critical care outreach; the ‘Sepsis Six’ bundle was completed significantly more often in this group (54/170, 32.0%) than for patients who were not reviewed by critical care outreach (168/1385, 11.6%; p < 0.0001). Overall survival to 30 days was 81.7% (1349/1651), with a mean survival time of 26.5 days (95% CI 26.1–26.9) with no difference between each year of study. 90-day survival for years 2017–2019 was 74.7% (949/1271), with no difference between the years. In multivariate regression we identified older age, heart failure, recent chemotherapy, higher frailty score and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation orders as significantly associated with increased 30-day mortality. Our data suggests that despite efforts to increase sepsis awareness within the NHS, there is poor compliance with the sepsis care bundles and no change in the high mortality over the study period. Further research is needed to determine which time-sensitive ward-based interventions can reduce mortality in patients with sepsis and how can these results be embedded to routine clinical practice.Trial registration Defining Sepsis on the Wards ISRCTN 86502304 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN86502304 prospectively registered 09/05/2016.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.