A Survey to Determine Decision-Making Styles of Working Paramedics and Student Paramedics.

OBJECTIVE: Two major processes underlie human decision-making: experiential (intuitive) and rational (conscious) thinking. The predominant thinking process used by working paramedics and student paramedics to make clinical decisions is unknown. METHODS: A survey was administered to ground ambulance paramedics and to primary care paramedic students. The survey included demographic questions and the Rational Experiential Inventory-40, a validated psychometric tool involving 40 questions. Twenty questions evaluated each thinking style: 10 assessed preference and 10 assessed ability to use that style. Responses were provided on a five-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating higher affinity for the style in question. Analysis included both descriptive statistics and t tests to evaluate differences in thinking style. RESULTS: The response rate was 88.4% (1172/1326). Paramedics (n=904) had a median age of 36 years (IQR 29-42) and most were male (69.5%) and primary or advanced care paramedics (PCP=55.5%; ACP=32.5%). Paramedic students (n=268) had a median age of 23 years (IQR 21-26), most were male (63.1%) and had completed high school (31.7%) or an undergraduate degree (25.4%) prior to paramedic training. Both groups scored their ability to use and favourability toward rational thinking significantly higher than experiential thinking. The mean score for rational thinking was 3.86/5 among paramedics and 3.97/5 among paramedic students (p<0.001). The mean score for experiential thinking was 3.41/5 among paramedics and 3.35/5 among paramedic students (p=0.06). CONCLUSION: Working paramedics and student paramedics prefer and perceive that they have the ability to use rational over experiential thinking. This information adds to our current knowledge on paramedic decision-making and is potentially important for developing continuing education and clinical support tools.

Elimination of rabies from red foxes in eastern Ontario.

The province of Ontario (Canada) reported more laboratory confirmed rabid animals than any other state or province in Canada or the USA from 1958-91, with the exception of 1960-62. More than 95% of those cases occurred in the southern 10% of Ontario (approximately 100,000 km2), the region with the highest human population density and greatest agricultural activity. Rabies posed an expensive threat to human health and significant costs to the agricultural economy. The rabies variant originated in arctic foxes: the main vector in southern Ontario was the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), with lesser involvement of the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources began a 5 yr experiment in 1989 to eliminate terrestrial rabies from a approximately 30,000 km2 study area in the eastern end of southern Ontario. Baits containing oral rabies vaccine were dropped annually in the study area at a density of 20 baits/km2 from 1989-95. That continued 2 yr beyond the original 5 yr plan. The experiment was successful in eliminating the arctic fox variant of rabies from the whole area. In the 1980's, an average of 235 rabid foxes per year were reported in the study area. None have been reported since 1993. Cases of fox rabies in other species also disappeared. In 1995, the last bovine and companion animal cases were reported and in 1996 the last rabid skunk occurred. Only bat variants of rabies were present until 1999, when the raccoon variant entered from New York (USA). The success of this experiment led to an expansion of the program to all of southern Ontario in 1994. Persistence of terrestrial rabies, and ease of elimination, appeared to vary geographically, and probably over time. Ecological factors which enhance or reduce the long term survival of rabies in wild foxes are poorly understood.

A comparison of clinical practice guideline appraisal instruments.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare clinical practice guideline appraisal instruments. METHODS: Appraisal instruments, defined as instruments intended to be used for guideline evaluation, were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966-99) using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) practice guidelines, reviewing bibliographies of the retrieved articles, and contacting authors of guideline appraisal instruments. Two reviewers independently examined the questions/statements from all the instruments and thematically grouped them. The 44 groupings were collapsed into 10 guideline attributes. Using the items, two reviewers independently undertook a content analysis of the instruments. RESULTS: Fifteen instruments were identified, and two were excluded because they were not focused on evaluation. All instruments were developed after 1992 and contained 8 to 142 questions/statements. Of the 44 items used for the content analysis, the number of items covered by each instrument ranged from 6 to 34. Only the instrument by Cluzeau and colleagues included at least one item for each of the 10 attributes, and it addressed 28 of the 44 items. This instrument and that of Shaneyfelt et al. are the only instruments that have so far been validated. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive, concise, and valid instrument could help users systematically judge the quality and utility of clinical practice guidelines. The current instruments vary widely in length and comprehensiveness. There is insufficient evidence to support the exclusive use of any one instrument, although the Cluzeau instrument has received the greatest evaluation. More research is required on the reliability and validity of existing guideline appraisal instruments before any one instrument can become widely adopted.