|
Post by flamethrower on Mar 7, 2006 21:26:02 GMT -5
This one is for all you EMS providers out there. Is our current EMS Con-Ed system enough to ensure adequate providers in the feild from your observations or would you like to see something different. Let hear some honest opinions on this one. The current standards are: 18 hours per 3 years for First Responders 24 hours per 3 years for Emergency Medical Technicians (otherwise known as paramedic savers) ;D 18 hours per year for Paramedics
|
|
|
Post by Medic13 on Mar 8, 2006 0:33:55 GMT -5
As far as REQUIRED hours, I don't think it's all that bad. Raise the requirements, and I'd be willing to bet you'll see a drop in the number of volunteer FR's and EMT's. Serious providers who run on a regular basis will almost always end up with far more than the required hours. Those who aren't serious and/or don't run on a regular basis probably won't be helped much by more classes anyway
|
|
|
Post by firefrog on Mar 9, 2006 8:11:55 GMT -5
I have to agree with all of you to a point,more con-ed hours for people who run easy,new classes would be nice,but it would weed out some the responders, There is no easy answer,
|
|
|
Post by 911wacker on Mar 9, 2006 17:48:19 GMT -5
I have a few points to make. First off, if you run less calls than other providers I think you would benefit more from additional training because you have less "feild experience" to put it all together. Secondly, there are thousands of classess listed with the state that are already approved for Con-ed. If you want something different, take the initiative on your own to host a class for your agency that nobody else in the area has hosted in the last few years.
I personally feel that regardless of how many calls they run, most providers learns something new every time they take a class or at least remember something they forgot. It is a well published fact that after 1 year, you will only retain 10 % of the knowledge gained on a specific topic.
|
|
|
Post by flamethrower on Mar 10, 2006 21:42:30 GMT -5
Serious providers who run on a regular basis will almost always end up with far more than the required hours. Those who aren't serious and/or don't run on a regular basis probably won't be helped much by more classes anyway My friend: This is dangerously close to a volunteer Vs. paid discusion that we best not get into here, also the reference to them/us not being able to be helped much either. But I am unclear on your opinion, do you or don't you support an increase in the requirement as a WHOLE to increase the care as a WHOLE?
|
|
|
Post by Medic13 on Mar 11, 2006 8:04:22 GMT -5
My friend:This is dangerously close to a volunteer Vs. paid discusion that we best not get into here, also the reference to them/us not being able to be helped much either My anonymous friend: Your assumption couldn't be further from the truth. Do you imply that volunteers don't run on a regular basis or aren't serious? There are just as many paid per-diem's that don't run often as there are volunteers. So am I now making it a full-time vs per-diem issue too? Paid or volunteer, if a provider doesn't get the real-world experience to apply the classroom information, it doesn't have nearly the same effect. My opinion is exactly what I said. I don't think the requirements are all that bad, and I believe an increase in the number of required hours would discourage some providers, (paid and volunteer, to be flamethrowerly correct), from recertification or from the EMT class in the first place. Not that weeding out the bad apples wouldn't be a good thing... but there are better ways to do that. All I'm saying is that as a WHOLE, more required hours won't automatically make better providers. It's easy to stir the pot when you're hiding behind a screen, isn't it, Mr Flamethrower?
|
|
|
Post by flamethrower on Mar 11, 2006 13:14:17 GMT -5
Well Doc,
I don't think that its fair you make blanket statements about volunteer or part-time EMS providers because they do less than your 300 calls a year, actually some of them do far more than that like maybe Dushore or volunteers with Western or Greater Valley.
My reasoning for this post was to raise the bar so to speak with regards to training. Do you think that it is fair for our state to require 24 hours of con-ed of which only half has to be related to medical/trauma issues in place of a 24 hour core content "refresher" class for EMT's. I think not, and just because you think that some of "those" providers are useless and are beyond help only re-enforces my opinion!! Maybe a simple thing like raising the amount of medical/trauma hours required would be a start. I don't think its fair to push people away, but it also is not fair to give patients less than adequate care. So while everyone is taking EVOC classes and fire schools to get con-ed, they should probobly be getting training on how to actually recognize and treat a patient instead. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Medic13 on Mar 11, 2006 14:19:35 GMT -5
Wow... you really took "misunderstanding" to a whole new level. Where are my blanket statements? Are you even reading what I write? I clearly stated that there are providers in both categories who don't run regularly and/or aren't serious. Do you disagree? As for guessing my call volume, accurate or not (not), you're only proving my point that there are providers who do run regularly and providers who don't. I'm not the one who decided there was a bias, that was you, buddy.
And where did I say "those" providers are useless? Which providers are "those"? As for the con-ed issue, I stated my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I don't believe that increasing the required hours, med/trauma or not, will automatically make better providers. I strongly believe that patients deserve the best possible care, but I feel that individual providers and services should be far more responsible about making education and performance decisions.
You took clear statements and twisted them. DO NOT put words in my mouth that I didn't say. If you don't like my opinion, fine, but don't make idiotic accusations based on your warped interpretation of a simple statement. Flamethrower, your choice to remain anonymous only proves that you're insecure about what you're saying. Put a name behind your words. The only person making this an "us vs them" thing is YOU. I was, am, and always will be a volunteer too.
|
|
Fire / EMS
Full Member
These words are MY opinion only, not that of my colleagues or my "Company". God Bless America!!
Posts: 44
|
Post by Fire / EMS on Mar 12, 2006 17:07:32 GMT -5
Not only is it not enough, all EMS personnel should have to re-test every 3 years. In other words, PROVE that they can still do the work. I know way too may EMT's and Medics that cant do squat out in the field but are great in the classroom! They NEED to be weeded out fast before someone gets hurt!
|
|
|
Post by canton1 on Mar 12, 2006 22:07:29 GMT -5
this is one close to my heart----Volunteer/Paid
Bet you know where I stand
I think it all depends on the number of runs you make and the nature of those calls
|
|
|
Post by 911wacker on Mar 15, 2006 19:49:47 GMT -5
Bet you know where I stand Yes we do Chief!! As far as the rest of this post, It appears that some people think the same way since 50% so far think more education is needed. Interesting topic, but I am sure at the state level more wieght would be carried on the fact that many communities are rural in PA with volunteer services that scape together volunteers as it is. More training would mean they would be required to expend more of thier time, thus reducing the #'s of active volunteers I suspect.
|
|