Accelerated EMT-B Program

[Arctickat]

I think that might be where we get off lucky with a (basically) government run school being the only institution providing training for PCPs and ACPs. The program may be a prescribed duration, but there is nothing stopping them from adding more time to the programs as additional skills and assessments are added to the provincial Scope. Especially if the time frame provided grows too crammed with information.

[imouto]

Thanks, everyone, for the informative posts. It looks like neither the regular nor the intensive courses coming up are going to be held due to an insufficient amount of applicants, so I'll be waiting it out anyway.

[Kiwiology]

I think that might be where we get off lucky with a (basically) government run school being the only institution providing training for PCPs and ACPs. The program may be a prescribed duration, but there is nothing stopping them from adding more time to the programs as additional skills and assessments are added to the provincial Scope. Especially if the time frame provided grows too crammed with information.

This is true, I mean technically I could teach what is really essential to know to do the job in maybe a year full time? Like 8 hours a day, 3 days a week? I reckon I could do that .... but where is the good in doing that, the people coming out of that would be so deficient in knowledge above simple behaviouristic responses to standardised stimuli and a little differential diagnosis thrown in that it'd probably be criminal!

[Tracybeth88]

I did a two month accelerated course at my community college. It was quite difficult considering the norm is 4-5 months. It seemed very rushed in 2 months and I wouldn't try to do another accelerated ems course personally. Since the instructors were on such a tight schedule it didn't seem very thorough.

[chbare]

Per a prior thread, would anybody care to present good evidence of a clock hour requirement that results in consistently producing a competent entry level provider within the context of the national SOP? I suspect any number thrown out would be rather arbitrary.

[Kiwiology]

The maximum limit for EMT-Basic of 110 hours set in 1990 was rather arbitrary too ... I know the figure of about 190 has been touted for the new "EMT" level under the NSOP.

So we have increased 80 hours in 20 years and nowhere in that additional 80 hours could simple things like entonox, salbutamol, GTN, glucagon or intramuscular adrenaline be accommodated .... how very, very disappointing, Kiwi sad now.

I have also figured I dislike the title of Emergency Medical Technician and much prefer Primary Care Paramedic (thanks Canada!) or maybe just Paramedic.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Kiwiology

[Frank Wilk]

Though I took the Basic EMT course through a local community college at the regular full-semester pace, I took the Advanced course during the summer semester (compressed course) and for some strange reason, did better when the heat was on, so to speak. However, the increased instructional tempo did not go unrecognized, and though largely an amplification of Basic with a lot of additional techniques and information, I would recommend that you consider a lengthier course for your basic training. There's a lot to absorb, and remember that life does go on outside of the classroom. Make your experience manageable as well as informative.

[Arctickat]

Per a prior thread, would anybody care to present good evidence of a clock hour requirement that results in consistently producing a competent entry level provider within the context of the national SOP? I suspect any number thrown out would be rather arbitrary.

That is something I'd like to determine as well. Is a long program better than a short one? What would we use as benchmarks though? Objective criteria such as pass/failure rate and exam marks don't accurately reflect the quality of the practitioner, while subjective criteria such as scenario performance and evaluations of patient care can't be evaluated in a consistent manner.

[paramedicmike]

Exam pass rates, though, are commonly used as the benchmark for determining the success of the class. When I was researching grad schools that was one of the points that many people across a wide background of experience suggested. The so called better programs had better first time pass rates.

Unfortunately, I think that's one of the problems in general. Program success doesn't not necessarily equate to provider success. Given the time needed to transition from student to efficient practitioner (as much as EMTs are practitioners) a huge disconnect is created. As such, you can't remove factors like on the job training and learning from determing success in the field. Further, as we're evaluating minimal competency of an entry level provider, not competency of someone who has been doing it for a while, what other bench mark can be used?

[chbare]

That is something I'd like to determine as well. Is a long program better than a short one? What would we use as benchmarks though? Objective criteria such as pass/failure rate and exam marks don't accurately reflect the quality of the practitioner, while subjective criteria such as scenario performance and evaluations of patient care can't be evaluated in a consistent manner.

This is becoming an issue in the United States as nurse practitioners who have significantly less education than doctors are throwing out "evidence" that suggests equivalent outcomes with NP's as opposed to MD/DO's in spite of a significant gap in education. Some are suspicious to say the least, but we do not have great quantatitive evidence that points toward an optimal number of hours regarding EMS education IMHO.