Author's reply: comparison of emerging roles

Abstract

As the lead author of this paper I was glad to read Mason and Bilby's letters, which clearly add to the debate of how we should evaluate new and emerging roles. To clarify our approach, it must be understood that we were collecting data for this study in 2002, examining the role of four of the first emergency care practitioners (ECPs) in UK. We were asking the question: If you change individuals roles (through training and the system of call out) what difference does it make to their practice? We took a multi‐method approach—that is, we used interpretist approaches (interviews and relective diaries) and a positivist stance in our comparison of ECP and paramedic roles. This was intended as a comparison—the paramedics were not considered as a “control” in any way. We chose to compare roles, as at the time of the study (2002) the “crew room chat” was all about this new role, with some holding the view that an ECP does little more than a good paramedic. In addition, as we mention in the discussion section of our paper, we may also have found that there was no difference—for example, in conveyance rates (paramedics v ECPs), which would have raised questions about the investment in the role. The scene now has changed and ECPs do appear to be developing a distinct and unique role, so a comparison with paramedics would indeed now be less relevant. In fact, in some current work we are focusing on the role of ECPs in interprofessional collaboration. In our provisional findings the role appears to be diverse, with many potential benefits for the patient.