Guest guest Posted January 25, 2000 Report Share Posted January 25, 2000 Christi: THANK YOU! I hate it when I feel obligated to write something like the original " The curriculum battle " because I know someone is going to take it as a personal affront. You're absolutely right that there is too much pussy-footing around some of these sacred cows when we ought to be pulling up the rocks and staring the bugs right in the face (my English professor would kill me for using a mixed metaphor, and a real stinker at that). For my self, I'm a lot more sympathetic to the volunteers than I am to paid fire departments or private EMS services regarding these issues. My only thing with them is they should choose to work at the level they can practically support. If they can't get the financial support and personnel to field a good, modern paramedic service, they should strive for excellence at the level they can reasonably achieve, even if its EMT-basic. A good EMT-basic or Intermediate system is much better for the citizens than is a pee-poor paramedic service. Its just not as glamorous. You wan't glamor, become an actor. This is why I think we made a mistake in not adopting the national EMT-I curriculum. The new EMT-I is potentially much broader in scope than our current one. The only flaw is that you can't take a completion class to go on to paramedic. You have to start over. That's why we recommended it not be adopted. We were wrong. However, I don't think Tony was wrong in pointing out that talk is cheap. We can cuss and discuss this all year and not do much about it. Now its time for everyone on both sides of this latest flap to hie their butts down to Austin and speak up. I wasn't there yesterday, but I'll be there from now on. I, for one, will also not consider anything sacred when I speak my piece. Thanks again Dave [texasems-L] The curriculum battle > >>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:02:31 -0600 > >> > >>It also seems very odd to me that the current effort to return us to the > >>late stone age of Texas EMS is being driven primarily by the leadership of > >>several mid-sized fire departments. Here is why. > >> > >>For quite some time on both the state and national level, fire department > >>administrations have put forth the notion that they are the best qualified > >>agencies through which communities can provide citizens with EMS service. > >>That suggests they are the most efficient, meaning the taxpayers get the > >>most for their tax money spent. They are the most effective, which suggests > >>that taxpayers will get the best quality of care for their buck spent. > >>Hmmmm. > >> > >>Look at the facts. Almost every fire department in Texas that does first > >>response or runs the EMS service spends a majority of their man hours > >>making EMS, not fire-related, calls. They have, in essense, become EMS > >>services that also run fire calls on the side. Of the ones I've had a > >>chance to review, the budget of not one diverts a corresponding amount of > >>its working budget to EMS operations and training. Fire-related activities > >>still receives the lion's share. While some FD-based EMS services have > >>excellent equipment, many show clearly the lack of appropriate budgetary > >>support. Why, one very major such service in North Central Texas, for > >>example, doesn't even equip its ambulances with pulse oximeters. Some of > >>their paramedics don't even know what they are. What all this means is that > >>these departments spend most of the taxpayer money on something other than > >>what most of their operational working time is actually used for. Hardly > >>what I'd call an efficient use of taxpayer dollars. > >> > >>Some (not all by any means) FD EMS services treat work in EMS operations as > >>an entry-level duty suitable only for rookies. Only a few seem to truly > >>consider this duty to be special and encourage personnel to stick with it > >>at least part of the time for an extended part of their careers. Now, a > >>certain number of these departments, who've sold their citizens on the > >>department doing EMS for the city, are telling us they can't manage to > >>train their personnel to a nationally recognized standard of competency > >>because it costs too much, even though they are already spending most of > >>their budget money on something other than the major thrust of their > >>working activities. Either that, or they are telling us they don't see why > >>their personnel, who are depended upon for EMS, should be trained to high > >>standards of competency. Either way, the departments who are behind this > >>recent move to block 157.32 are sending a clear message. Either they aren't > >>the best source for EMS in their communities because they are too > >>inefficient to allocate resources properly to meet the most pressing needs > >>of their citizens, or they aren't the best source because they are too > >>incompetent or irresponsible to recognize the necessity of training their > >>personnel to a standard recognized as appropriate by some of the best > >>experts in the field of EMS. In either case, it is clear that these folks > >>should not be doing EMS for their communities if they can't do it right. > >> > >>Understand me. I'm not saying FD EMS, in general, is a bad way to go. There > >>are many departments in this state who are doing it right and to the hilt > >>every day. They are well-equipped. The EMS crews are well-motivated and > >>dedicated. They train their personnel to the highest standards. They are > >>serving the public interest and honoring the public trust consistently and > >>proudly. There are others, however, that betray that public trust by > >>mis-allocated funds and personnel. They have poorly-equipped ambulances. > >>They exclusively use the least-experienced personnel for EMS. They are > >>refusing to allocate the time and money needed to properly train their EMS > >>personnel to the recognized national standard and are trying to hide that > >>by preventing 157.32 from going into effect. They are obviously not acting > >>in the public interest. By supporting the blockage of the proposed > >>regulations, they are branding themselves for what they are. It is as > >>simple as that. > >> > >>Should such persons and agencies be granted the credibility necessary to > >>cause this proposed regulation to be pulled, after all the work, time, and > >>sweat that was put into hammering it out? I, for one, think not. They are > >>an embarrassment to fire department-based EMS. All they will accomplish if > >>they succeed in coercing TDH to pull the proposed regulations is to prove, > >>yet again, that we have no such thing as a stable and well-considered > >>regulatory process for EMS in this state. That, by the way, with respects > >>paid to the livers of myself and many other old hands in Texas EMS, is the > >>real reason EMS in this state is in the condition it is. > >> > >>Dave Lic-P > >> > >> > >>Note: The opinions I have expressed are mine alone. They do not represent > >>the opinions of any company or group with which I may be affiliated. You > >>got a problem with what I've said, you talk to me! > >> > >> > >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws. > >>http://click./1/664/3/_/4981/_/948729007/ > >> > >>-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar! > >>-- /cal?listname= & m=1 > >> > > > >______________________________________________________ > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws. > >http://click./1/664/3/_/4981/_/948767271/ > > > >-- Talk to your group with your own voice! > >-- /VoiceChatPage?listName= & m=1 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws. > http://click./1/664/3/_/4981/_/948773010/ > > -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar! > -- /cal?listname= & m=1 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.