National Ambulance Non-Conveyance Audit (NANA) Report. 2014. http//

Clesham K, Mason S, Gray J, Walter S, Cooke V Can emergency medical service staff predict the disposition of patients they are transporting. Emerg Med J. 2008; 25:(10)691-4

London: DH; 2010

Dick WF Anglo-American vs. Franco- German emergency medical services system. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003; 18:(1)29-35

Goulding J Paramedic Pathfinder: is it really better than current practice?. Journal of Paramedic Practice. 2014; 6:(8)396-7

Goulding J, Plummer N Re: Clinical navigation for beginners: the clinical utility and safety of the Paramedic Pathfinder. Emerg Med J. 2014;

Gray JT, Walker A Avoiding admissions from the ambulance service: a review of elderly patients with falls and patients with breathing difficulties seen by emergency care practitioners in South Yorkshire.. Emerg Med J. 2008; 25:(3)168-71

Lovegrove MHigh Wycombe: Allied Health Soultions, New Buckinghamshire New University; 2013

Mason S, Knowles E, Colwell B Effectiveness of paramedic practitioners in attending 999 calls from elderly people in the community: cluster randomised controlled trial.. Brit Med J. 2007; 335:(7626)

Newton M, Tunn E, Moses I, Ratcliffe D, Mackway Jones K Clinical navigation for beginners: the clinical utility and safety of the Paramedic Pathfinder. Emerg Med J. 2014;

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

02 September 2014
Volume 6 · Issue 9

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.

Subscribe to get full access to the Journal of Paramedic Practice

Thank you for visiting the Journal of Paramedic Practice and reading our archive of expert clinical content. If you would like to read more from the only journal dedicated to those working in emergency care, you can start your subscription today for just £48.

What's included

  • CPD Focus

  • Develop your career

  • Stay informed