Heroism and paramedic practice: A constructivist metasynthesis of qualitative research.

Objectives: We aimed to identify, appraise, and synthesise the qualitative literature to develop theory on heroism and paramedic practice. Hypothesis/research question: What does published literature tell us about heroism and paramedic practice? Setting: Paramedics and other healthcare workers (HCWs) faced an outpouring of public support for them early in the COVID-19 pandemic which brought into focus the relationship between them and society, where they are portrayed as heroes. Participants: We conducted a metasynthesis using Evolved Grounded Theory and procedural guidelines of Noblit and Hare to guide analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines were also applied. Results: 151 papers were retrieved and eleven included in the final sample. Studies were moderate to very low quality, involving a wide range of methodologies and settings; none specifically explored heroism and paramedic practice. The following interrelated themes were constructed on heroism and paramedic practice: (a) Myth, Folk law, and storytelling in heroism and paramedic practice (b) The epic journey of heroism and paramedic practice (c) Heroes and Zeroes: The fluctuating Societal Value in heroism and paramedic practice (d) Politicisation, and objectification in Heroism and Paramedic practice. Conclusion: Paramedics have long been characterised as heroes, but this may not reflect their everyday experiences. Heroism in paramedic practice can provide scripts for prosocial action, inspiring others, and leading to more social heroic actions. Paramedics may however be ambivalent to such heroism narratives, due to politicisation, and objectification in the media and society. This metasynthesis is only one of many possible constructions of heroism and paramedic practice and is the first point in making sense of and developing theory on heroism and paramedic practice. Study registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021234851.

Protocol for a constructivist metasynthesis of qualitative research of heroism and paramedic practice.

BACKGROUND: Exceptional demands have been placed on paramedics and other healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. An overwhelming outpouring of public support has unfolded, bringing into focus the relationship between paramedics, other HCWs and society, where they are portrayed as heroes. Scholars have studied the notion of heroism to society, and characteristics of such heroic status include: the voluntary nature of a heroic act, risk of physical or social harm, willingness to accept the consequences of action, acting for the benefit of others and without the expectation of gain. While some HCWs and paramedics may reflect these characteristics, many may not. Such heroic narratives can be damaging, stifling meaningful discussion around limits to duties, failing to acknowledge the importance of reciprocity and potentially imposing demands on paramedics and HCWs to be heroic. AIM: This article prospectively presents the protocol for a metasynthesis which aims to identify, appraise and synthesise the qualitative literature in order to develop theory on heroism and paramedic practice. METHODS: Evolved grounded theory methodology is followed along with the procedural guidelines of Noblit and Hare (1988) to guide the analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) have also been adopted when preparing this protocol and will be followed in the study proper. The protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2021, registration number CRD42021234851. RESULTS: We do not currently have results, but PRISMA guidelines will be followed when reporting our findings. CONCLUSION: Current narratives on heroism and paramedic practice are important in terms of the relationship between paramedics and society. The metasynthesis prospectively reported in this article serves as the first point in our journey of making sense of and developing theory on heroism and paramedic practice.

Prioritisation of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes of a novel triage pathway.

Objective: The 2-week-wait (2ww) referral pathway is used in England to fast-track patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). A two-stage triage pathway was used to prioritise lower gastrointestinal (LGI) endoscopy for suspected CRC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: All patients referred for an LGI endoscopy via a 2ww referral pathway between March 2020 and July 2020 were assessed. The first stage triaged patients to high, standard or low risk of CRC based on symptoms and faecal immunochemical test (FIT), and offered CT scans to those at high risk. The second stage, endoscopy prioritisation (EP), incorporated the CT results, FIT and symptoms to triage into four groups, EP1-EP4; with EP1 being the most urgent and EP4 the least. The primary outcome measure was CRC detection. Results: 514 patients were included. The risk of CRC was triaged as high in 190/514 patients (37%), standard in 274/514 patients (53%) and low in 50/514 (10%) patients. 422/514 patients (82%) underwent endoscopy with triage to EP1 in 52/422 (12%), EP2 in 105/422 (25%), EP3 in 210/422 (50%) and EP4 in 55/422 (13%). CRC was detected in 23 patients (5.4%). CRC was significantly more frequent in the EP1 group (23.1%, relative risk (RR)=16.2) and EP2 group (6.7%, RR=4.7) compared with EP3 group (1.4%). All CRC lesions were identified by CT imaging when performed prior to LGI endoscopy. Conclusion: This triage pathway designated 83% of patients with CRC to either EP1 or EP2. During a period of limited endoscopy provision, this pathway effectively prioritises endoscopy for those at greatest risk of CRC.