A response to ‘Paramedic Pathfinder: is it really better than current practice?’

In his letter of response published in last month's Journal of Paramedic Practice (JPP), Goulding (2014) raises several concerns regarding the validity and necessity for a recently implemented Paramedic Pathfinder (Newton et al, 2013), while attempting to develop an argument against its wider application to UK EMS practice. His reasoning is broadly underpinned by three key assertions:

These concerns essentially mirror those raised in his co-authored e-Letter submitted to the Emergency Medicine Journal in June 2014 (Goulding and Plummer, 2014). Given that I was not involved in the design or expert peer review of the protocol, I do not feel appropriately positioned to comment in any detail on the latter of these three elements. I do, however, feel compelled to comment on the former two.

At first sight, Goulding's letter appears to uncover several interesting findings in relation to the published evaluation of the Paramedic Pathfinder from Newton et al. However, careful examination of Goulding's comments suggest he fails to demonstrate the same academic rigour he accuses Newton et al of omitting from their own study. Indeed, his contribution is biased, inaccurate, and quite frankly does not provide any credible evidence to answer the question he postulates in the title ‘Paramedic Pathfinder: is it really better than current practice?’ I would further suggest that if submitted to the JPP in any other format, it would have been rejected through the robust peerreview process.