Re: Poll results for texasems-l

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/10/01 7:54:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, joby@...

writes:

<< I agree with Gene..

wegandy@... wrote:

> Since I could never access the poll I couldn't vote, but if I would have

> voted NO. I totally disagree with allowing RNs to sit for the exam

without

> taking a transition course.

>

> E. Gandy, JD, LP

> EMS Professions Program

> Tyler Junior College

> Tyler, TX

> >>

ME Too

[Guest guest]

I agree with Gene..

wegandy@... wrote:

> Since I could never access the poll I couldn't vote, but if I would have

> voted NO. I totally disagree with allowing RNs to sit for the exam without

> taking a transition course.

>

> E. Gandy, JD, LP

> EMS Professions Program

> Tyler Junior College

> Tyler, TX

>

>

[Guest guest]

Greetings fellow EMS members,

I am in Austin Meeting on this RN issue. There seems to be some mis-

information going around the state. I wish I had time to explain this issue

in depth but I have to attend the meetings to discuss these issues and I

don't type very fast. Let me sum it up and say the the issue is not whether a

nurse, doctor, etc can appear with a license and a cpr card and take the

paramedic exam. The issue is WHO will initially evaluate the nurse's

experience and decide which aspects of parmedic training, based on the

nurse's experience, he/she may not have to repeat the state or the college.

I wish you all could be at GETAC to hear all of the issues there are

numerous. I do not feel nurses are trying to become paramedics with their

nursing license, but they are trying to receive credit for their experiences

and the courses they have taken in nursing school.

It was my understanding that this became an issue because some flight nurses

were required to become paramedics by their employer whithin a specific time

period. When they looked into the paramedic programs in that area, each

school's requirements were different. The state for some legal reason is

attempting to put some uniformity into this system.

There was a combined meeting of the Education, EMS and Medical Director's

committees yesterday. The board of Health has the rule changes including

157.33 with deals with Equivalency, our decision was to leave it as is and

not accept the new changes proposed by TDH. You can view it on the TDH web

page. I sorry but I have to go. I hopeful that we the members of GETAC will

vote as the committees have reccommended.

Maxie Bishop, LP, RN

PS: Please excuse any typo's but I wanted to inform you what was happening

and I'm trying to get out of here.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/11/01 8:41:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rxmd@...

writes:

<<

Greetings fellow EMS members,

I am in Austin Meeting on this RN issue. There seems to be some mis-

information going around the state. I wish I had time to explain this

issue

in depth but I have to attend the meetings to discuss these issues and I

don't type very fast. Let me sum it up and say the the issue is not

whether a

nurse, doctor, etc can appear with a license and a cpr card and take the

paramedic exam. The issue is WHO will initially evaluate the nurse's

experience and decide which aspects of parmedic training, based on the

nurse's experience, he/she may not have to repeat the state or the

college.

I wish you all could be at GETAC to hear all of the issues there are

numerous. I do not feel nurses are trying to become paramedics with

their

nursing license, but they are trying to receive credit for their

experiences

and the courses they have taken in nursing school.

It was my understanding that this became an issue because some flight

nurses

were required to become paramedics by their employer whithin a specific

time

period. When they looked into the paramedic programs in that area, each

school's requirements were different. The state for some legal reason

is

attempting to put some uniformity into this system.

There was a combined meeting of the Education, EMS and Medical

Director's

committees yesterday. The board of Health has the rule changes

including

157.33 with deals with Equivalency, our decision was to leave it as is

and

not accept the new changes proposed by TDH. You can view it on the TDH

web

page. I sorry but I have to go. I hopeful that we the members of GETAC

will

vote as the committees have reccommended.

Maxie Bishop, LP, RN>>

Maxie,

Thank you for a good, concise report on what it going on in Austin with the

Committees.

, BS, LP

Instructor

Tyler Junior College

EMS Professions Program

[Guest guest]

Well, Maxie this proves that having an RN on the board is not a good idea.

Re: Poll results for

Greetings fellow EMS members,

I am in Austin Meeting on this RN issue. There seems to be some mis-

information going around the state. I wish I had time to explain this issue

in depth but I have to attend the meetings to discuss these issues and I

don't type very fast. Let me sum it up and say the the issue is not whether

a

nurse, doctor, etc can appear with a license and a cpr card and take the

paramedic exam. The issue is WHO will initially evaluate the nurse's

experience and decide which aspects of parmedic training, based on the

nurse's experience, he/she may not have to repeat the state or the college.

I wish you all could be at GETAC to hear all of the issues there are

numerous. I do not feel nurses are trying to become paramedics with their

nursing license, but they are trying to receive credit for their experiences

and the courses they have taken in nursing school.

It was my understanding that this became an issue because some flight nurses

were required to become paramedics by their employer whithin a specific time

period. When they looked into the paramedic programs in that area, each

school's requirements were different. The state for some legal reason is

attempting to put some uniformity into this system.

There was a combined meeting of the Education, EMS and Medical Director's

committees yesterday. The board of Health has the rule changes including

157.33 with deals with Equivalency, our decision was to leave it as is and

not accept the new changes proposed by TDH. You can view it on the TDH web

page. I sorry but I have to go. I hopeful that we the members of GETAC

will

vote as the committees have reccommended.

Maxie Bishop, LP, RN

PS: Please excuse any typo's but I wanted to inform you what was happening

and I'm trying to get out of here.

[Guest guest]

Howdy !

Yes, indeed. It was a bad time for yahoo to go YAHOOOOO!

Take care,

Jeff

Re: Poll results for

> There would have been a lot more " votes " if we could just have gotten into

> the poll site.

[Guest guest]

Howdy y'all!

> POLL QUESTION: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the TDH recommended changes

to the certification rule that will > allow RNs, PAs, MDs and DOs to become

paramedics by the old 'challenge' process?

>

> CHOICES AND RESULTS

> - I AGREE with the TDH recommended 'challenge' process., 2 votes, 5.26%

> - I DISAGREE with the TDH recommended 'challenge' process., 36 votes,

94.74%

First, I'd like to point out that this appears to be about as close to a

consensus as anything I've ever seen in EMS. For once, we are united on an

issue.

Next, I'd like to address something that was said during the EMS subcomittee

meeting yesterday. Several nurses stood up to support the idea of the

challenge process but complained that people on this list (I'm assuming that

would be me) misrepresented the issue.

They are of the opinion that this is NOT a challenge process at all because

their experience is being evaluated by TDH. They just didn't want the

colleges to do the evaluating. While this brings up some very interesting

points that I'd just love to debate, the real point I want to address here

is the implication that the EMS people who wrote letters and emails opposing

this recomendation did so because they were mislead or somehow uninformed.

The implication here is that this is really just a minor issue that

everyone would support if they were 1) properly informed and 2) fair minded.

Let me be fairly clear about this. The recommended wording will put back in

place the EXACT SAME process that has been in existence for many years.

Pretty much everyone I know calls this a challenge process (because that is

what it is) and knows very well what is involved.

I think the EMTs and paramedics of this state are bright enough to

understand this issue. Am I wrong? Was anyone out mislead?

Take care,

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Jeff,

I was not mislead in reading the rule. I do agree and I thing everyone else

will agree that it does sound exactly like it use to be, except EMT Basic is not

required.

Of course the nurses are going to stand up and object, because other wise they

are not going to get a paramedic certification just handed to them on a sliver

platter. How long do you think it would take the BNE to shot down a rule like

this for paramedics, about a milisecond. So why is TDH so stead fast on getting

this rule back on the books, to make nursing happy? That's what it seems like.

We all have a right to object to something that is going to turn EMS into a joke

in Texas.

Wayne

Re: Poll results for

Howdy y'all!

> POLL QUESTION: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the TDH recommended changes

to the certification rule that will > allow RNs, PAs, MDs and DOs to become

paramedics by the old 'challenge' process?

>

> CHOICES AND RESULTS

> - I AGREE with the TDH recommended 'challenge' process., 2 votes, 5.26%

> - I DISAGREE with the TDH recommended 'challenge' process., 36 votes,

94.74%

First, I'd like to point out that this appears to be about as close to a

consensus as anything I've ever seen in EMS. For once, we are united on an

issue.

Next, I'd like to address something that was said during the EMS subcomittee

meeting yesterday. Several nurses stood up to support the idea of the

challenge process but complained that people on this list (I'm assuming that

would be me) misrepresented the issue.

They are of the opinion that this is NOT a challenge process at all because

their experience is being evaluated by TDH. They just didn't want the

colleges to do the evaluating. While this brings up some very interesting

points that I'd just love to debate, the real point I want to address here

is the implication that the EMS people who wrote letters and emails opposing

this recomendation did so because they were mislead or somehow uninformed.

The implication here is that this is really just a minor issue that

everyone would support if they were 1) properly informed and 2) fair minded.

Let me be fairly clear about this. The recommended wording will put back in

place the EXACT SAME process that has been in existence for many years.

Pretty much everyone I know calls this a challenge process (because that is

what it is) and knows very well what is involved.

I think the EMTs and paramedics of this state are bright enough to

understand this issue. Am I wrong? Was anyone out mislead?

Take care,

Jeff

[Guest guest]

It was nothing personal toward Maxie, just nursing in general. I wish that it

had been where I could have been at the meeting yeaterday.

Wayne

Re: Poll results for

Howdy Wayne!

I realize you were probably being sarcastic here, but I'd like to say Maxie

did a fine job yesterday, as did everyone there. This most certainly

includes the well organized nurses that I'm so jealous of. While I may

disagree with them, their opinion is certainly as valid as ours.

Take care,

Jeff

Re: Poll results for

>

>

> Greetings fellow EMS members,

> I am in Austin Meeting on this RN issue. There seems to be some mis-

> information going around the state. I wish I had time to explain this

issue

> in depth but I have to attend the meetings to discuss these issues and

I

> don't type very fast. Let me sum it up and say the the issue is not

whether a

> nurse, doctor, etc can appear with a license and a cpr card and take

the

> paramedic exam. The issue is WHO will initially evaluate the nurse's

> experience and decide which aspects of parmedic training, based on the

> nurse's experience, he/she may not have to repeat the state or the

college.

> I wish you all could be at GETAC to hear all of the issues there are

> numerous. I do not feel nurses are trying to become paramedics with

their

> nursing license, but they are trying to receive credit for their

experiences

> and the courses they have taken in nursing school.

> It was my understanding that this became an issue because some flight

nurses

> were required to become paramedics by their employer whithin a

specific time

> period. When they looked into the paramedic programs in that area,

each

> school's requirements were different. The state for some legal reason

is

> attempting to put some uniformity into this system.

> There was a combined meeting of the Education, EMS and Medical

Director's

> committees yesterday. The board of Health has the rule changes

including

> 157.33 with deals with Equivalency, our decision was to leave it as is

and

> not accept the new changes proposed by TDH. You can view it on the

TDH web

> page. I sorry but I have to go. I hopeful that we the members of

GETAC will

> vote as the committees have reccommended.

>

> Maxie Bishop, LP, RN

>

> PS: Please excuse any typo's but I wanted to inform you what was

happening

> and I'm trying to get out of here.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Howdy Wayne!

I realize you were probably being sarcastic here, but I'd like to say Maxie

did a fine job yesterday, as did everyone there. This most certainly

includes the well organized nurses that I'm so jealous of. While I may

disagree with them, their opinion is certainly as valid as ours.

Take care,

Jeff

Re: Poll results for

>

>

> Greetings fellow EMS members,

> I am in Austin Meeting on this RN issue. There seems to be some mis-

> information going around the state. I wish I had time to explain this

issue

> in depth but I have to attend the meetings to discuss these issues and

I

> don't type very fast. Let me sum it up and say the the issue is not

whether a

> nurse, doctor, etc can appear with a license and a cpr card and take

the

> paramedic exam. The issue is WHO will initially evaluate the nurse's

> experience and decide which aspects of parmedic training, based on the

> nurse's experience, he/she may not have to repeat the state or the

college.

> I wish you all could be at GETAC to hear all of the issues there are

> numerous. I do not feel nurses are trying to become paramedics with

their

> nursing license, but they are trying to receive credit for their

experiences

> and the courses they have taken in nursing school.

> It was my understanding that this became an issue because some flight

nurses

> were required to become paramedics by their employer whithin a

specific time

> period. When they looked into the paramedic programs in that area,

each

> school's requirements were different. The state for some legal reason

is

> attempting to put some uniformity into this system.

> There was a combined meeting of the Education, EMS and Medical

Director's

> committees yesterday. The board of Health has the rule changes

including

> 157.33 with deals with Equivalency, our decision was to leave it as is

and

> not accept the new changes proposed by TDH. You can view it on the

TDH web

> page. I sorry but I have to go. I hopeful that we the members of

GETAC will

> vote as the committees have reccommended.

>

> Maxie Bishop, LP, RN

>

> PS: Please excuse any typo's but I wanted to inform you what was

happening

> and I'm trying to get out of here.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

Your answer is correct. What I meant was the State Board of Nursing will

not give you a nursing licenses because your a Dr. Will they? The same for the

others I mentioned.

Thanks,

Ron

Re: Poll results for

> >

> >

> >

> > Howdy y'all!

> >

> >

> > > POLL QUESTION: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with

> > the TDH recommended changes

> > to the certification rule that will > allow RNs,

> > PAs, MDs and DOs to become

> > paramedics by the old 'challenge' process?

> > >

> > > CHOICES AND RESULTS

> > > - I AGREE with the TDH recommended 'challenge'

> > process., 2 votes, 5.26%

> > > - I DISAGREE with the TDH recommended

> > 'challenge' process., 36 votes,

> > 94.74%

> >

> > First, I'd like to point out that this appears

> > to be about as close to a

> > consensus as anything I've ever seen in EMS. For

> > once, we are united on an

> > issue.

> >

> > Next, I'd like to address something that was

> > said during the EMS subcomittee

> > meeting yesterday. Several nurses stood up to

> > support the idea of the

> > challenge process but complained that people on

> > this list (I'm assuming that

> > would be me) misrepresented the issue.

> >

> > They are of the opinion that this is NOT a

> > challenge process at all because

> > their experience is being evaluated by TDH. They

> > just didn't want the

> > colleges to do the evaluating. While this brings

> > up some very interesting

> > points that I'd just love to debate, the real

> > point I want to address here

> > is the implication that the EMS people who wrote

> > letters and emails opposing

> > this recomendation did so because they were

> > mislead or somehow uninformed.

> > The implication here is that this is really just

> > a minor issue that

> > everyone would support if they were 1) properly

> > informed and 2) fair minded.

> >

> > Let me be fairly clear about this. The

> > recommended wording will put back in

> > place the EXACT SAME process that has been in

> > existence for many years.

> > Pretty much everyone I know calls this a

> > challenge process (because that is

> > what it is) and knows very well what is

> > involved.

> >

> > I think the EMTs and paramedics of this state

> > are bright enough to

> > understand this issue. Am I wrong? Was anyone

> > out mislead?

> >

> > Take care,

> > Jeff

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

testing

> > > Jeff,

> > >

> > > I was not mislead in reading the rule. I do agree

> > > and I thing everyone else will agree that it does

> > > sound exactly like it use to be, except EMT Basic is

> > > not required.

> > >

> > > Of course the nurses are going to stand up and

> > > object, because other wise they are not going to get

> > > a paramedic certification just handed to them on a

> > > sliver platter. How long do you think it would take

> > > the BNE to shot down a rule like this for

> > > paramedics, about a milisecond. So why is TDH so

> > > stead fast on getting this rule back on the books,

> > > to make nursing happy? That's what it seems like.

> > >

> > > We all have a right to object to something that is

> > > going to turn EMS into a joke in Texas.

> > >

> > > Wayne

> > > Re: Poll results for

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Howdy y'all!

> > >

> > >

> > > > POLL QUESTION: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with

> > > the TDH recommended changes

> > > to the certification rule that will > allow RNs,

> > > PAs, MDs and DOs to become

> > > paramedics by the old 'challenge' process?

> > > >

> > > > CHOICES AND RESULTS

> > > > - I AGREE with the TDH recommended 'challenge'

> > > process., 2 votes, 5.26%

> > > > - I DISAGREE with the TDH recommended

> > > 'challenge' process., 36 votes,

> > > 94.74%

> > >

> > > First, I'd like to point out that this appears

> > > to be about as close to a

> > > consensus as anything I've ever seen in EMS. For

> > > once, we are united on an

> > > issue.

> > >

> > > Next, I'd like to address something that was

> > > said during the EMS subcomittee

> > > meeting yesterday. Several nurses stood up to

> > > support the idea of the

> > > challenge process but complained that people on

> > > this list (I'm assuming that

> > > would be me) misrepresented the issue.

> > >

> > > They are of the opinion that this is NOT a

> > > challenge process at all because

> > > their experience is being evaluated by TDH. They

> > > just didn't want the

> > > colleges to do the evaluating. While this brings

> > > up some very interesting

> > > points that I'd just love to debate, the real

> > > point I want to address here

> > > is the implication that the EMS people who wrote

> > > letters and emails opposing

> > > this recomendation did so because they were

> > > mislead or somehow uninformed.

> > > The implication here is that this is really just

> > > a minor issue that

> > > everyone would support if they were 1) properly

> > > informed and 2) fair minded.

> > >

> > > Let me be fairly clear about this. The

> > > recommended wording will put back in

> > > place the EXACT SAME process that has been in

> > > existence for many years.

> > > Pretty much everyone I know calls this a

> > > challenge process (because that is

> > > what it is) and knows very well what is

> > > involved.

> > >

> > > I think the EMTs and paramedics of this state

> > > are bright enough to

> > > understand this issue. Am I wrong? Was anyone

> > > out mislead?

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Jeff

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >