Skip to main content

Paramedics’ experiences of barriers to, and enablers of, responding to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases: a qualitative study

Abstract

Background

Paramedics’ work, even pre-pandemic, can be confronting and dangerous. As pandemics add extra stressors, the study explored paramedics’ lived experience of the barriers to, and enablers of, responding to suspected or confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases.

Methods

This exploratory-descriptive qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to investigate Queensland metropolitan paramedics’ experiences of responding to cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Registered Paramedics were recruited by criterion sampling of staff who experienced the COVID-19 pandemic as active officers.

Results

Nine registered paramedics participated. Five themes emerged: communication, fear and risk, work-related protective factors, leadership, and change. Unique barriers included impacts on effective communication due to the mobile nature of paramedicine, inconsistent policies/procedures between different healthcare facilities, dispatch of incorrect information to paramedics, assisting people to navigate the changing healthcare system, and wearing personal protective equipment in hot, humid environments. A lower perceived risk from COVID-19, and increased empathy after recovering from COVID-19 were unique enablers.

Conclusions

This study uncovered barriers and enablers to attending suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases unique to paramedicine, often stemming from the mobile nature of prehospital care, and identifies the need for further research in paramedicine post-pandemic to better understand how paramedics can be supported during public health emergencies to ensure uninterrupted ambulance service delivery.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare globally and significantly impacted lives, including those of paramedics who perform essential frontline health care [1]. In Australia, emergency ambulance services are run/contracted by the state/territory and most qualified paramedics have a paramedicine diploma or degree and can provide advanced life support [2].

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, lessons learnt from other healthcare settings about processes of care and behaviours during disaster and emergency responses were applied to the prehospital environment [3, 4]. A recent review [5] found only nine studies that included the paramedic experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, with various foci, including leadership strategies, psychological/social wellbeing or resilience, attitudes and stressors, and knowledge and preparedness; while including two Australian studies [6, 7], none focused specifically on the experiences of paramedics in attending suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases to examine the barriers to, and enablers of, responding to those cases. Exploring paramedics’ experience of responding under COVID-19 specific conditions may provide insights into how to increase the willingness of paramedics to respond during future public health emergencies to ensure uninterrupted ambulance service access and delivery.

This research sought to understand paramedics’ lived experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research question was ‘What were Queensland metropolitan paramedics’ experiences of barriers to, and enablers of, attending suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases?’

Methods

Study design

An exploratory-descriptive qualitative approach [8] was applied to understand the experience of paramedics during the COVID-19 pandemic. A constructivist paradigm was chosen to explore paramedics’ experiences because it assumes there are multiple subjective realities, insider knowledge can be valuable, there is a holistic emphasis on the experience being investigated, and rich data are obtained whilst addressing context and processes [8, 9].

Participant selection and setting

Registered paramedics from metropolitan south-east Queensland, Australia were invited to participate (few COVID-19 cases were occurring elsewhere at the time). Advanced Care Paramedics (ACP) and Critical Care Paramedics (CCP) in patient-facing roles with at least one year of operational experience during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Patient Transport officers, doctors or paramedics working in supervisory roles were excluded. Criterion sampling [10] was applied to find participants with diverse education levels, age, gender and experience.

Recruitment and data collection

The primary researcher’s management position created a potential power imbalance given the position they worked in at the time, and their previous experience in operational paramedic roles made it likely they would know participants. Consequently, they had no direct contact with participants. A research assistant (RA) was utilised to ensure participant confidentiality and to ensure they felt safe to express themselves freely. The RA had a health science doctoral qualification and invited expressions of interest via an email containing an information sheet sent by the ambulance research department. Thirty-four responses were received. After an initial screen against the inclusion criteria, the RA sent a de-identified list to the primary researcher who authorised eleven invitations to be sent out in June 2022 that maximised sample diversity. After eight interviews, no new codes were generated; one more participant was interviewed to confirm this. Four open-ended interview questions on participants’ experiences of responding to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the barriers and enablers to responding to these patients were asked. The interview was piloted with a paramedic who was not part of the study; no changes to the questions were required. The RA conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed interviews (approximately 30-min in duration) in July, 2022.

Data analysis

The research team included the primary researcher, and three doctoral qualified academics, one of whom was also a Registered Paramedic. Trustworthiness and rigour during data collection and analysis was addressed using the Lincoln-Guba framework, which underpins credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability [11]. During the interview and analysis phase, this included utilising a RA, member checking at the end of each interview, and researcher reflection on their own biases and preconceived thoughts after each transcript was reviewed. Researcher discussion supported rigour by identifying preconceptions the primary researcher may have that could influence data analysis [12]. Further member checking of transcripts was not deemed necessary due to the clarity of the participants’ comments.

Thematic analysis was conducted using the six-phase process outlined by Braun and Clarke [13]. The inductive method was used as the analysis was driven by the data, each participant’s language, and concepts [14], and aligns with the exploratory-descriptive qualitative approach, which focused on investigating the essence of the paramedics’ experiences during COVID-19 and remaining open to emerging themes. The transcripts were analysed by UH and all researchers discussed the coding and agreed on the themes. This discussion was informed by a range of illustrative quotes that exemplified each code.

Ethics

Ethics approval was obtained from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. no:84446) and Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. no:2021/819). The ambulance service approved paramedic recruitment. Participants gave informed consent.

Results

Nine Registered Paramedics, four female and five male, aged 27–52 years (median 42; IQR = 32, 43), with 3–24 years of experience (median 8; IQR = 5, 15.5) were interviewed. Eight were ACPs, one was a CCP, all had a Bachelor of Paramedicine and two had paramedicine-related Master’s degrees. The analysis generated 26 codes and five themes: communication, fear and risk, leadership, work-related protective factors, and change.

Communication

This theme included the codes: organisational communication, media, public health messages, and interagency communication (Table 1). Participants perceived communication - from the ambulance service, media or formal health channels – substantially impacted paramedics during the pandemic. Communication ranged from being helpful and building trust, to lacking clarity and becoming overwhelming, confusing, and frustrating.

Table 1 Communication

Fear and risk

The fear and risk theme included the codes: paramedic safety prioritised, physical risk to paramedic, healthcare barriers, unnecessary risk, fear of unknown, and having contracted COVID-19 (Table 2). Most indicated fear and risk influenced their personal and professional lives, with a flow on effect to patient care. Whilst mostly seen as a barrier to responding to cases, fear and risk also led to more empathetic approaches to patient care, and adherence to effective infection prevention and control practices.

Table 2 Fear and risk

Leadership

The leadership theme included the codes: organisational leadership and lack of trust in organisation and government through the pandemic (Table 3). Some commented on the challenge of leadership through a pandemic, and appreciated open information-sharing, while others mistrusted decision-making and indicated the need for a consistent, visible leader.

Table 3 Leadership

Work-related protective factors

Work-related protective factors covered emotional, physical, or financial support, including vaccines, leave entitlements, personal protective equipment (PPE), secure employment and comradery (Table 4). However, wearing PPE in hot, humid environments, and difficulty accessing entitlement information caused frustration and distress.

Table 4 Work-related protective factors

Change

The theme of change included the codes: adapting to their role and expectations, effect on personal life, emotional/mental health, evolution of pandemic normalised responding to cases, workload, and public reaction (Table 5). Paramedics reported issues as barriers earlier in the pandemic, but adapted as the community became highly vaccinated, their exposure to COVID-19 cases increased and it became more endemic, normalising responding to cases. Paramedics were often the first point of contact to navigate patients through the healthcare system, e.g., when patients called the ambulance service because they did not know what to do.

Table 5 Change

Discussion

Barriers to, and enablers of, Queensland metropolitan paramedics responding to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases were identified. Some barriers had previously been reported in studies of other healthcare workers, including communication issues, change in work practices, increased burnout, psychological distress, fear of infection to self and loved ones, lack of PPE and vaccines, and unpreparedness [15,16,17,18]. Barriers unique to the prehospital environment included ineffective communication due to the mobile nature of paramedicine, inconsistent policies/procedures between different facilities, dispatch of incorrect information, assisting people to navigate the changing healthcare system, and wearing PPE in hot, humid environments.

Communication difficulties related to the mobile nature of paramedicine

While there can be communication issues in everyday work at the best of times, effective communication during a global infectious disease outbreak is particularly challenging due to mass media coverage, public concern, and uncertainty related to the disease [19]. Email-based communication is not always received, and communication failure can occur due to one-time message delivery, and communication fatigue [20]. In addition, media coverage, and widespread mis/disinformation created communication challenges [21].

Overwhelming, changing information during an outbreak is not unusual [7]. What was unique to the paramedic experience was the impact of the mobile nature of prehospital care. Attending multiple healthcare facilities per shift meant paramedics were exposed to multiple interpretations of pandemic guidance and local practices. Inconsistencies and lack of communication regarding different procedures, caused frustration, delays, and unnecessary exposure to infectious patients. This experience was confirmed in recent studies [5, 7, 22, 23].

One paramedic [22] attended a case where four paramedics on scene had four different oxygenation strategies, due to frequent guideline changes and the timing of accessing updates, highlighting the need for better communication strategies as an outbreak evolves.

Increased safety risks due to receiving incorrect information from the ambulance service dispatch

Another unique communication barrier related to case dispatch. Paramedics rely on receiving correct information prior to arriving on scene to assess and mitigate risk based on what is known about the case. Miscommunication arose from the dispatcher either misunderstanding information or receiving incorrect information from the person requiring assistance, causing an increase in stress to the paramedic. Whilst case dispatch errors can occur outside of pandemic situations, the pandemic itself added an extra layer of stress in relation to paramedic safety. More stringent organisational procedures and public education are required to prevent this.

Paramedics assisted patients to navigate the new healthcare rules

The pandemic disrupted the way healthcare was delivered and/or accessed by both health professionals and consumers [17, 24, 25]. Paramedics were affected by increased hospital waiting times, and the move to telehealth changed the types of cases they were called to [7]. Paramedics often had to navigate patients through the healthcare system to access the most appropriate help in addition to the many changes they were experiencing in their workplace and community. This indicates the need for further investigation into how paramedics can effectively assist patients when there are so many changes occurring during a pandemic, often with limited information.

Wearing PPE in hot, humid environments, caused discomfort and fatigue

Globally, healthcare workers felt the adverse effects of wearing PPE more frequently and for longer periods [26], however, the prehospital environment created additional challenges for paramedics working in hot, humid conditions. While there is limited literature specifically on paramedics and heat-related illness when wearing PPE, during the African Ebola outbreak, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [27] indicated wearing PPE impairs the body’s ability to reduce body heat through sweat production, PPE holds excess heat and moisture and increases the physical effort to perform duties and the wearer can’t drink, increasing the risk of heat-related illness [27, 28]. Other common risk factors in prehospital environments include direct sun exposure, physical exertion, dehydration, and indoor heat sources at patients’ homes. Clinicians need to balance having an impermeable layer of PPE to protect against viral contamination, and the heat stress caused to the wearer [29]. While personal cooling garments are available, the effectiveness of these to decrease PPE-related heat stress has not been studied [28].

Healthcare workers are at increased risk of self-contamination when doffing PPE if they are experiencing PPE-related discomfort [30], have trouble completing procedures, and experience facial injuries and skin conditions, and decreased well-being and job satisfaction. These issues are particularly relevant for paramedics in hot, humid parts of Australia. Paramedic-specific research is required to better support paramedics working in these environments in full PPE.

After contracting COVID-19, participants’ perceptions of risk reduced and empathy towards COVID-19-positive patients increased

One enabler - a decreased perception of risk and associated anxiety, and increased empathy for COVID cases after contracting COVID oneself - has not been previously reported, possibly because paramedics are used to experiencing risk in their work [31, 32].

This exploration of paramedics’ experiences of barriers to, and enablers of, responding to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases uncovered challenges unique to the prehospital field that can potentially impact service delivery. Paramedicine is often the ‘forgotten profession’ overshadowed by community and acute care, and emergency department issues [31]. While studies based on a hypothetical public health emergency and willingness to respond are helpful, there are limitations compared to exploring this phenomenon during an actual public health emergency [33].

Limitations

Paramedics in non-metropolitan areas were not recruited and may have provided new insights into responding to cases in a geographically diverse state that includes logistical and resourcing challenges common in rural/remote areas. Given the specific recruitment for this study, the findings may not be transferable to other prehospital settings. Culture and personal beliefs and how these may have affected paramedics’ experience of working during a pandemic were not explored.

Recommendations

Further research is required on methods to improve communication to paramedics, particularly cross-facility communication, and how to flag critical information changes so these changes are implemented as soon, and consistently, as possible. Strategies to mitigate the effects of PPE when worn for extended periods in hot, humid conditions should also be explored. In the meantime, supervisors should prioritise regular rehydration, breaks, and welfare checks. Research on barriers and enablers during a public health emergency from the perspective of managers, executive leadership and other ambulance service providers would provide a deeper understanding of the issues.

Conclusion

The value of this research is that it captures Queensland metropolitan paramedics’ experience while working through the most significant public health emergency of our generation. This study uncovered barriers and enablers to responding to COVID-19 cases and thus to ambulance service delivery unique to paramedicine stemming from the mobile nature of prehospital care. It is vital that we support healthcare workers to maintain their physical and mental health, and willingly provide essential services, and that the healthcare system is ready to provide a cohesive response to public health emergencies across all sectors. This study highlights the importance of further research into paramedics in their roles.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available to protect the confidentiality of participants but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ACP:

Advanced care paramedic

CCP:

Critical care paramedic

COVID-19:

Coronavirus disease 2019

PPE:

Personal protective equipment

RA:

Research assistant

References

  1. Piotrowski A, Makarowski R, Predoiu R, Predoiu A, Boe O. Resilience and subjectively experienced stress among paramedics prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol 2021;12.

  2. Ambulance Victoria. Types of Paramedics. Victoria: Ambulance Victoria. www.ambulance.vic.gov.au/paramedics/typesof-paramed Accessed 15 October 2023.

  3. Carter H, Thompson J. Defining the paramedic process. Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(1):22–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Watt K, Tippett VC, Raven S, Jamrozik K, Koory M, Archer F, et al. Attitudes to living and working in pandemic conditions among emergency prehospital medical care personnel. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(1):13–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Howarth U, Zimmerman P-A, van de Mortel T, Barr N. Barriers to, and enablers of, paramedics responding to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases: an integrative review. Australa Emerg Care. 2022;26(1):66–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Li C, Sotomayor-Castillo C, Nahidi S, Kuznetsov S, Considine J, Curtis K, et al. Emergency clinicians’ knowledge, preparedness and experience of managing COVID-19 during the 2020 global pandemic in Australian healthcare settings. Australas Emerg Care. 2021;24:186–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Petrie K, Smallwood N, Pascoe A, Willis K. Mental health symptoms and workplace challenges among Australian paramedics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(2):1004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Hunter DJ, McCallum J, Howes D. Defining exploratory-descriptive qualitative (EDQ) research and considering its application to healthcare. J Nurs H Care 2019; 4(1).

  9. Polit D, Beck C. Trustworthiness and rigor in qualitative research. In: Polit D, Beck C, editors. Nursing Research. Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2020. pp. 1948–2967.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Moser A, Korstjens I. Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3. Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24(1):9–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stahl NA, King JR. Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. J Dev Educ. 2020 Fall;44(1):26–29.

  12. Sundler AJ, Lindberg E, Nilsson C, Palmer L. Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nurs Open. 2019;6(3):733–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. In: Michalos A, Editor, editors. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Netherlands: Springer; 2014. pp. 6626–8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Murray EJ, Mason M, Sparke V, Zimmerman P-E. Factors influencing health care workers’ willingness to respond to duty during infectious disease outbreaks and bioterrorist events: an integrative review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021;36(3):321–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pilbeam C, Tonkin-Crine S, Martindale A, Atkinson P, Mabelson H, Lant S, et al. How do healthcare workers ‘do’ guidelines? Exploring how policy decisions impacted UK healthcare workers during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Qual Health Res. 2022;32(5):729–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Smallwood N, Karimi L, Pascoe A, Bismark M, Putland M, Johnson D, et al. Coping strategies adopted by Australian frontline health workers to address psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2021;72:124–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Stuijfzand S, DeForges C, Sandoz V, Sajin C-T, Jacque C, Elmers A, et al. Psychological impact of an epidemic/pandemic on the mental health of healthcare professionals: a rapid review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang C, Chou T, Liu JS. The development of pandemic outbreak communication: a literature review from the response enactment perspective. Know Manag Res Pract. 2021;19(4):525–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Germaine P, Catanzano T, Patel A, Mohan A, Patel K, Pryluck D, et al. Communication strategies and our learners. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2021;50(3):297–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mukhtar S. Psychological health during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic outbreak. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020;66(5):512–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Boechler L, Cameron C, Smith C, Ford-Jones P, Southers P. Impactful approaches to leadership on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic: lived experiences of Canadian paramedics. Healthc Q. 2021;24(3):42–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Oliphant A, Faulds C, Nouvet E. At the front-line: Ontario paramedics’ experiences of occupational safety, risk and communication during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Emerg Serv. 2022;11(2):207–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bernacki K, Keister A, Sapiro N, Joo J, Mattle L. Impact of COVID-19 on patient and healthcare professional attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours toward the healthcare system and on the dynamics of the healthcare pathway. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1309.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Mitton JA, de Hernandez BU, Pasupuleti N, Hurley K, John R, Cole A. Disruptive resilience: harnessing leadership to build a more equitable health care system after COVID-19. Popul Health Manag. 2021;24(6):646–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Unoki T, Sakuramoto H, Sato R, Ouchi A, Kuribara T, Furumaya T et al. (2021). Adverse effects of personal protective equipment among intensive care unit healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. SAGE Open Nurs 2021;6:1–14.

  27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Limiting heat burden while wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ebola/pdfs/limiting-heat-burden-while-wearing-ppe-training-slides-healthcare-workers-site-coordinators.pdf Accessed 15 October 2023.

  28. Tumram NK. Personal protective equipment and personal cooling garments to reduce heat-related stress and injuries. Med Leg J. 2020;88(1 suppl):43–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Coca A, Quinn T, Kim J-H, Wu T, Powell J, Roberge R, et al. Physiological evaluation of personal protective ensembles recommended for use in West Africa. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017;11(5):580–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Davey SL, Lee BJ, Robbins T, Randeva H, Thake C. Heat stress and PPE during COVID-19: impact of healthcare workers’ performance, safety and well-being in NHS settings. J Hosp Infect. 2021;108:185–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lawn S, Roberts L, Willis E, Couzner L, Mohammadi L, Gobi E. The effects of emergency medical service work on the psychological, physical, and social well-being of ambulance personnel: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(1):348.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Maguire BJ. Violence against ambulance personnel: a retrospective cohort study of national data from safe work Australia. Public Health Res Pract. 2018;28(1):e28011805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gee S, Skovdal M. The role of risk perception in willingness to respond to the 2014–2016 west African Ebola outbreak: a qualitative study of international health care workers. Glob Health Res Policy. 2017;2(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Queensland Ambulance Service) for facilitating paramedic recruitment, Dr. Megan Rattray for her research assistance, and participants for their insights.

Funding

Nil to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

U.H. conceptualised the study and collected the data. U.H., P.Z, T.M. and N.B. analysed the data. U.H. drafted the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thea F. van de Mortel.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. no:84446) and Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. no:2021/819). The ambulance service approved paramedic recruitment. Participants gave written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Howarth, U., Zimmerman, PA., van de Mortel, T.F. et al. Paramedics’ experiences of barriers to, and enablers of, responding to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 24, 678 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11120-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11120-x

Keywords