Katiebug Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 This may be where we have to agree to disagree. I think it's too much too fast. If my grandmother has a heart attack and a broken hip, I don't want a fresh 18 day graduate coming to her house. I want someone that has been through many, many scenarios and had much time to study on and think about what they should do. If you think that the length of training has no bearing on the quality of care, then I will never agree with that. But I can't make you agree with me either. I stand on what I've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPINFV Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Length matters. A 200 hour program more time to properly instruct students than a 110 hour course. A 110 hour course is a 110 hour course regardless of if it's 12 hours a day for 10 days or spread out over 3 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwiology Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I do not see a problem with SAMPLE, DCAPBTLS or whatever other fancy wanker acronyms you want but you can't teach "look for A, B, C, D etc" and blindly follow it -- that's as bad as being a cookbook skill monkey. If you have the knowledge of normal physiology and anatomy then you should know what would be abnormal anyway and if you know that and simply use some acronym to make sure you cover your bases that is fine. Example: I love cardiology, I absolutely love it to bits and know how all the systems tie up into the cardiovascular function and what normal and abormal function is and how it affects the body. I know Nana who is having an acute infarct should be hypoperfused so diaphoretic, dizzy, ALOC, maybe SOB if a CPE is involved etc, might have some localized edema due to > ISF .... I don't need a fancy acronym to remember what to look for. If you blindly follow an acronym because that's all you know THEN YOU FAIL AS A MEDICAL PROVIDER and FORESHAME on the education system and the regulators for ALLOWING it. If you take an 18 day course because you want to go from zero to hero with zero previous knowledge THEN YOU FAIL and get the hell away from me. If you have a background of A&P, pharm, med term etc or if you're an RN (etc) who needs the cert then I don't see a problem with it; I mean after all, it's not rocket science, it's a bunch of skills you could teach a fencepost to carry out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) This may be where we have to agree to disagree. I think it's too much too fast. If my grandmother has a heart attack and a broken hip, I don't want a fresh 18 day graduate coming to her house. I want someone that has been through many, many scenarios and had much time to study on and think about what they should do. But you are ignoring the obvious mathematical imperative here. 120 hours is 120 hours. Period. A person who gets 120 hours over 6 months is getting no more scenario time than a person who gets 120 hours over 18 days. If you want to argue that 250 hours over six months is greater than 120 hours over 18 days, then you are on the cusp of having a valid point, but that is not what you are saying. Regardless, 600 hours of EMT training is still not going to save the life of a heart attack or hip fracture victim any better than 120 hours would. Without ALS care, both are going to die. Being an overeducated EMT is like winning the Special Olympics. Edited March 17, 2009 by Dustdevil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPINFV Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Being an overeducated EMT is like winning the Special Olympics. I r a winnar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfmanHarris Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Being an overeducated EMT is like winning the Special Olympics. I actually feel like this a lot sometimes. Two years of school, and most of the time bed, oxygen and blanket is all I can provide. Gotta get that student debt paid down so I can go ACP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeweli39 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 It's true. If you have a background or a knack for EMS, then by all means take the accelerated course. If many of us think back to when we new EMT's, most of us didn't feel prepared for the first real call we had to sign our names to. Yes, I took the 4 month course back in 1994. However, the words in the books were skills that needed to be practiced on pts. Not family members. Try this. Take the course, garner all the information you can from that resourse. Study your &#$@ off, take the test. If you pass the test, then go forth, young one and EMT to your hearts content. If you don't pass the test, re-take the test, etc. I'm sure I'm not the only medic in hx to take cme or training classes that I didn't need- just because I liked the topic. (if the county pays I'm there). Afterall, a better trained basic makes a better trained partner, but I digress. If you do the 18 day be prepared to study, in the bathtub, the car, your sleep. Everywhere for that 18 days. My old roommate did the 24 day class. He passed the class, and failed the test, did it over. Regretted spending the money on the accelerated but was really well prepared for the 4 month course. LOL = lots of luck (for this one at least) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatPack Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Regardless, 600 hours of EMT training is still not going to save the life of a heart attack or hip fracture victim any better than 120 hours would. Without ALS care, both are going to die. Being an overeducated EMT is like winning the Special Olympics. I would have to disagree, I dont believe there can be too much education at any level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyM83 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 On a side note the pass rate of this class was about 40%. Whats funny is they removed the instructor who was a paramedic with about 20 years experience and a BS in biology, because the pass rate was to low and replaced him with an EMT with no college education and little experience. The pass rate a few years ago was about 100% . Its a joke. You have to provide details on that statement to give it value. The pass rate could have increased because the instructor was really good or because they made the class easier. I know of a school that has an EMT with no college degree and about 5 years experience. When he coordinated classes, not only did he make the material much harder, but much clearer and pass rates did increase. Those EMTs also stand out when they do ride-alongs with our ambulance company. I walked into a lecture a bit ago and they were differentiating locations of baroreceptors and chemoreceptors. 100x better than my 6 month, twice a week EMT class I took. But in the end, I think it does come down to class hours. You can make the most out of them with stellar instructors who care about molding a thinking EMT, but you're going to be limited. (But if we make all systems ALS and limit BLS to first responders, not as big of a deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I would have to disagree, I dont believe there can be too much education at any level. So then you wouldn't mind if we bumped up EMT training to four years, while retaining the same skillset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts