Talk:Emergency Medical Retrieval Service

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.emrsscotland.org. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Emergency Medical Retrieval Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090411060359/http://www.emrs.scot.nhs.uk:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=29 to http://www.emrs.scot.nhs.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090411060354/http://www.emrs.scot.nhs.uk:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=28 to http://www.emrs.scot.nhs.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=28

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Map issues
The map used seems unhelpful, it doesn't show EMRS bases, or indeed the major hospitals. TheMouseMen (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Added map showing the base locations (Glasgow and Aberdeen). The map I've added could be improved, perhaps with MTCs and Trauma Units. Ideally also with a scale (miles/km). TMallinson (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

FOI citation
The foi citation is EMRS stating how they run, therefore is reliable! Imaginarium Monkey (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Merger?
Should EMRS be merged into ScotSTAR? Does ScotSTAR run EMRS? Are they the same organisation? TheMouseMen (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have clarified and cited this in the introductory paragraph. EMRS is an organisation within ScotSTAR, so I suspect is reasonable to be kept as-is for now. RDMcHenry (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Data misrepresentation?
My recent edit changed to "The teams attend around 1 prehospital patient a day", it previously said 2-3 prehospital patients a day. From the latest cited data in this article (by another wikipedia editor with COI with this page); 3633 prehospital patients seen by EMRS in 10 years. That's 363/year. That's around 1/day (just less than), furthermore, this should really be divided by the two teams, so each team sees 0.5 prehospital patients per day.

I am concerned that some recent edits were made to push the article towards a more positive and promotional POV. In this case by misrepresenting the latest presented data. If the data are incorrect, we can change wikipedia. TheMouseMen (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, and clearly the importance of neutral point of view is key to Wikipedia. While I have my previously acknowledged COI (and wrote the paper that is being quoted) I'm concerned that the source is misrepresented in your summary. The paper cited is a longitudinal view, and the numbers you quote are an average over 10 years of data, not representing current practice. Current figures are presented in the paper, which would seem to be a more representative place to start? Clearly engaging in an edit war over this is a poor use of time - given the fact that current numbers are presented in this peer-reviewed literature, would it be acceptable to revert to the previous wording? RDMcHenry (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)