Twice the curriculum....good or bad?

[Michael_1973]

New to the site, so I hope I do not catch a lot of flack for throwing topics out there right away, but as I have just revently gotten back in to the EMS education, and found out that they doubled the curriculum across the board, I was curious to know what the general concensus was from the experts? Do you think this will help the field in the long run? I guess my opinion is...for a field that claims to have an abundance of EMT-B's currently...this might slow the stream down a bit...which will obviously slow the down line in advanced training. Just curious....what everyone else is thinking. Thanks and Happy 4th of July to everyone! Michael

[paramedicmike]

Welcome.

The education changes, IMO, are not enough. If you do a search we've had some good education based discussions here recently.

Start as many topics as you like. Post as much as you like. Just remember we've been here a while. Chances are good we've had a discussion just like, or similar to, what you're thinking. That doesn't mean you can't post. Just throwing that out as an FYI.

[Kiwiology]

I assume you are referring to the change from the National Standard Curriculum to the EMS Education Standards which are part of the much lauded EMS Agenda for the Future

Certainly the curriculum has not "doubled" but rather there have been some adjustments around the periphery without substantive, meaningful change. The changes are positive but overall most disappointing considering the EMS Agenda for the Future has been in development since 1996 and similar programs in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the UK have been running for considerably shorter and achieved far greater meaningful outcomes in terms of educational requirements and the associated scope of practice.

There is still no mandate for higher education and the requirement for accreditation of Paramedic programs by the COAEMSP/CAAHEP is promising but they have dropped the requirement for programs to be affiliated with a college or university at the pressure of (among others) the IAFF and the IAFC. This is not helped by a severe lack of national unity. One of the 12 week patch factories is COAEMSP/CAAHEP accredited, need I say more?

For nearly thirty years an American EMT has been unable to check a blood sugar or administer GTN (nitroglycerin) according to national standards and nothing has changed in that time ... I am not sure what kind of future this agenda envisaged but it must be a pretty piss poor one.

[Got Emt]

I assume you are referring to the change from the National Standard Curriculum to the EMS Education Standards which are part of the much lauded EMS Agenda for the Future

Certainly the curriculum has not "doubled" but rather there have been some adjustments around the periphery without substantive, meaningful change. The changes are positive but overall most disappointing considering the EMS Agenda for the Future has been in development since 1996 and similar programs in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the UK have been running for considerably shorter and achieved far greater meaningful outcomes in terms of educational requirements and the associated scope of practice.

There is still no mandate for higher education and the requirement for accreditation of Paramedic programs by the COAEMSP/CAAHEP is promising but they have dropped the requirement for programs to be affiliated with a college or university at the pressure of (among others) the IAFF and the IAFC. This is not helped by a severe lack of national unity. One of the 12 week patch factories is COAEMSP/CAAHEP accredited, need I say more?

For nearly thirty years an American EMT has been unable to check a blood sugar or administer GTN (nitroglycerin) according to national standards and nothing has changed in that time ... I am not sure what kind of future this agenda envisaged but it must be a pretty piss poor one.

In pa they have adopted the emt A, but did not set down the guide lines yet. There is an argument among board of health and council as to pushing drugs. Being an emt B I don't think we should push drugs maybe only give the ones we are allowed to assit with and start an iv

[Kiwiology]

In pa they have adopted the emt A, but did not set down the guide lines yet. There is an argument among board of health and council as to pushing drugs. Being an emt B I don't think we should push drugs maybe only give the ones we are allowed to assit with and start an iv

There should not be an argument if the state follows the National EMS Scope of Practice model; see this was the entire point about the EMS Agenda for the Future, to remove the elventy billion different scopes of practice and titles used in US

Starting an IV is pretty easy but if you are going to be allowed to shove a drip in people should you be allowed to give fluid and if you can give fluid should you be allowed to give medicines? If not, then what is the point of being able to simply insert an IV? And from there it just goes on and on, NZ is aggressively phasing out the old ICO level which can start an IV and give fluid but not administer IV medicines, why have only half the pie?

I think you are missing the point, this Agenda has been in development for nearly twenty years and such simple (and beneficial) things as administering GTN, glucagon and entonox are still not (nor probably ever will be) in the scope of an EMT despite them being standard at the entry to practice level in every other Western nation on earth.

You give me the projected ~150 to 180 hours it is envisaged the new EMT Education Standards are going to require to teach and I can turn out somebody who can confidently and safely administer aspirin, GTN, salbutamol, entonox, paracetamol, glucagon and IM adrenaline. The benefit for the patient of having somebody who can safely and appropriately administer these drugs at the base level is huge but despite nearly twenty years of progress on the Agenda and a plethora of international experience to draw upon the results have been so mediocre its not funny its just very sad

Edited July 4, 2012 by Kiwiology

[island emt]

It all depends on where you are as to how many hours the EMT-B course has been. Here it has been running 150 -175- hrs, plus 40 hrs of clinicals and ride time with a busy service.

The new curriculum will not add too many more hours to that, if any.

[Kiwiology]

For you it may not add much in terms of how long it is but it will change what is being taught

For other places it will be a huge addition as they have stuck strictly to the 120 hour design that was implemented in 1994

Unfortunately despite any additional education the output in terms of clinical skill between a 2012 EMT and a 1984 EMT-Ambulance are about the same. Yes, you can teach a monkey skills but honestly, seriously, when such little progress has been made in thirty fucking years it just angers and saddens me terribly and it become a little bit more appropriate to argue about upskilling.

[island emt]

We have been using what will become the new guidelines for 5 years kiwi. Not much change here at the Basic level.

Our Intermediate level will actually be dumbed down to meet the new advanced level as it currently has more requirements than the new "advanced EMT " level.

[Kiwiology]

I think the National Scope of Practice really tries to tackle the problem of the "Paramediate" i.e. the Intermediate who has enough of the Paramedic skills but not enough of the education to be just a bit dangerous.

The Advanced EMT level I don't have too much of a problem with given that its really meant to be an add on for the volunteers or people out in the sticks to offer a higher level of care than would otherwise be available in systems who cannot (for whatever reason) have Paramedics.