RE: How will Texas respond?

[Guest guest]

From what I've seen you 'e probably right, although I'm not real certain I

agree with the idea. A mid-level EMSer is needed in my opinion, but this

person could be the " Fire Medic " you and Brunicini talk about. I certainly

don't like the term. I liked it better when my patch said Special Skills.

Regards,

Donn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

D.E. (Donn) , LP, NREMT-P

" Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on

knowing-the rest is mere sheep-herding. "

~~ Ezra Pound ~~

Don't Miss EMStock

www.EMStock.com

May 20-22 2005

________________________________

From: Bledsoe

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:33 PM

To:

Subject: RE: How will Texas respond?

One mandate that I know has occurred is that there must be no more

intermediate (many states, like Florida) do not do Intermediate and

it is

confusing for the public (Are you an intern, intermediate, what is

an

intermediate, I want a paramedic). Don't put much money in EMT-I as

a level

being around next go-round.

BEB

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, TX

Don't miss EMStock 2005 (http://www.EMStock.com)

Re: How will Texas respond?

Very good response. Texas should be along the same lines in regard

to

position.

The EMT-Intermediate level I believe needs to stay in place.

The skills appear to be the strong point of disagreement. I do not

see

decreasing the skills we are already able to perform. I believe any

less

would be a step backward instead of a step forward. Standardized

evaluations and reevaluations of skills would appear to be a

starting point

to the argument against Paramedic practice of skills being

decreased, but

wait don't we already do this?

The rural environment appears to be the main winner of the new

proposed

" Scope Of Practice. " This I am sure will be met with strong

opposition.

My generous opinion only.

Danny L.

Owner/NREMT-P

Panhandle Emergency Training Services And Response

(PETSAR)

Office

FAX