Talk:Emergency Medical Retrieval Service

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

National Health Service (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Health Service, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National Health ServiceWikipedia:WikiProject National Health ServiceTemplate:WikiProject National Health ServiceNational Health Service

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article 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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Emergency Medical Retrieval Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FOI citation

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

Merger?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]