Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Prehospital emergency care attends to patients experiencing acute suffering; a sudden and profound disruption affecting the person's life, body and existential well-being in the context of illness, injury or crisis. In this unpredictable and vulnerable setting, a central question emerges: how can caring needs be effectively met? AIM: The aim of this paper is to develop a concept synthesis grounded in a caring science paradigm within the prehospital context, clarifying the nature of caring. METHOD: A concept synthesis based on a caring science theoretical framework was conducted using a combined deductive-inductive approach, integrating theory, clinical experience and relevant literature through an abductive and iterative process. RESULTS: The synthesis introduces three interrelated concepts: acute Suffering (S), act of Togetherness (T) and On-scene space (O), situated within Prehospital emergency care (P). These concepts collectively shape the STOP synthesis. STOP positions caring as the core of prehospital emergency care, emphasizing a holistic perspective that extends beyond a purely biological understanding. It provides a structured framework for understanding and practicing the complexity of caring in this setting. CONCLUSION: Using the STOP-sign metaphor, the STOP synthesis highlights the importance of pausing in prehospital emergency care to recognize the patient as a multidimensional human being experiencing acute suffering. By integrating the concepts of acute Suffering, act of Togetherness and On-scene space within the prehospital context, the synthesis promotes a shift beyond a solely biomedical perspective toward a caring science understanding of suffering and care. The synthesis may support prehospital professionals, particularly nurses, in integrating caring and medical knowledge in clinical practice and provides a theoretical basis for future research, education and a holistic prehospital emergency care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holmberg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: