The Skills Test Issue (WAS: Re: A Longhorn says Gig 'Em)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/2007 8:42:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,

mhudson@... writes:

NR reps could be an option if a program did not want to do skills

verification, or Dishes decided the program was unable to conduct a fair skills

exam.

One solution to this can be found in other States (yes other states can do

things in ways that Texas could adopt and adapt to fit our needs).

In New Jersey when the skills test comes due they are conducted at the site

of the course with the skills being done with the same equipment that was used

in that course. All equipment is approved by the State OEMS of course but

you have choices such as a KED versus a XP-1 or a Hare versus a Sager etc. This

eliminates any issues with regard to variations in equipment so Students

don't need to worry about having never seen a given piece of gear on test day,

we know where this issue has caused a Student issues recently.

The Instructors and Course Coordinator (different from the way we do that

title here in Texas mind you, as it's not a level of Certification but a title

based on the Program in question) that taught in the class are not allowed to

skill test at this point they are there for Student and equipment

coordination and logistics only. The state OEMS (= to DSHS) brings in Certified

Skill

Examiners from other regions of the state and they administer the test. There

is a pre-qualifications process to be allowed to do this but I am not sure

what that is but all EMT Skill examiners but be EMT's and must be EMS

Instructors.

Like the NR if you fail a station that day you are allowed a re-test that

day with different Skill Examiner, 1 re- test I think was the limit with a

maximum of 2 Skill stations failed in a given test day but since I never dealt

with that I am not sure on the numbers.

In Pennsylvania they use similar rules and again have a similar process.

I for one prefer the idea of a Skill Examiner that has not been involved in

the teaching of the class for the simple reason that we are making the Student

perform this skill under some additional pressure that while not akin to a

real Patient scenario does add that extra bit of can they deal with pressure

to the Skill Testing environment.

The current system is flawed in ways and could always stand improvement.

Discussions like this are healthy for the System and can and likely do lead to

improvement of said System. Trashing the System ad nausea is just that trash.

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

Owner and President of LNM Emergency Services Consulting Services (LNMECS)

Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant

LNMolino@...

(Cell Phone)

(IFW/TFW/FSS Office)

(IFW/TFW/FSS Fax)

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for

its

stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the

original author.

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest

products.

(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

[Guest guest]

Can someone tell me, please, why we should have a skills examination? Do

the nurses have one? Do the respiratory therapists have one? Do the

physicians have one? Do the dentists have one? Do the vets have one?

No. They gain skills verification through many observations of the skill

being performed. That is the ONLY way that skill verification is meaningful.

The sort of skill verification we are doing now is a total waste of time and

money.

When I used to run the program at TJC, we used the skill checkoff as a

vehicle to allow the student to BEGIN doing skills both in the field and during

scenario practice. Every student's files contained records of numerous

observations of each skill being performed. For example, the student had to

demonstrate the ability to start IVs in the classroom, on fellow students, prior

to

going to skills practice in the field, and then a minimum number of IVs had to

be

observed and documented and validated by preceptors.

The idea of a " one time with one retest " skill exam is ludicrous.

If a young friend of ours had gone through a process similar to the one I

outlined, there would have been no question about his abilities to perform a

skill and no exam would have been needed.

We pretend to be educators, yet we ignore many basic facts that educators

know. One snapshot of a person performing a skill is virtually worthless as a

predictor of field performance.

I, as an EMS educator and coordinator, take my responsibility for my students

much more seriously than that. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not they

can start an IV on the arm and get through all the right moves in a testing

situation. I want to KNOW that they can do it in the ambulance, moving down

the road, successive times in a row, as verified by somebody who is there

watching them. And that goes for all the other skills.

We could do it that way if we had the interest and the will. But we want

shortcuts. I remember when these arguments came up years ago, and the medical

directors insisted that we have a " snap " that they could rely upon to tell

them their delegee was OK. I told them they were deluding themselves and

living

in a dream world, but they didn't believe me.

Our focus should be on how our students react with patients, not manikins.

GG

>

>

> In a message dated 11/27/2007 8:42:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,

> mhudson@mesquiteisdmhud writes:

>

> NR reps could be an option if a program did not want to do skills

> verification, or Dishes decided the program was unable to conduct a fair

> skills exam.

>

> One solution to this can be found in other States (yes other states can do

> things in ways that Texas could adopt and adapt to fit our needs).

>

> In New Jersey when the skills test comes due they are conducted at the site

> of the course with the skills being done with the same equipment that was

> used

> in that course. All equipment is approved by the State OEMS of course but

> you have choices such as a KED versus a XP-1 or a Hare versus a Sager etc.

> This

> eliminates any issues with regard to variations in equipment so Students

> don't need to worry about having never seen a given piece of gear on test

> day,

> we know where this issue has caused a Student issues recently.

>

> The Instructors and Course Coordinator (different from the way we do that

> title here in Texas mind you, as it's not a level of Certification but a

> title

> based on the Program in question) that taught in the class are not allowed

> to

> skill test at this point they are there for Student and equipment

> coordination and logistics only. The state OEMS (= to DSHS) brings in

> Certified Skill

> Examiners from other regions of the state and they administer the test.

> There

> is a pre-qualifications process to be allowed to do this but I am not sure

> what that is but all EMT Skill examiners but be EMT's and must be EMS

> Instructors.

>

> Like the NR if you fail a station that day you are allowed a re-test that

> day with different Skill Examiner, 1 re- test I think was the limit with a

> maximum of 2 Skill stations failed in a given test day but since I never

> dealt

> with that I am not sure on the numbers.

>

> In Pennsylvania they use similar rules and again have a similar process.

>

> I for one prefer the idea of a Skill Examiner that has not been involved in

> the teaching of the class for the simple reason that we are making the

> Student

> perform this skill under some additional pressure that while not akin to a

> real Patient scenario does add that extra bit of can they deal with pressure

> to the Skill Testing environment.

>

> The current system is flawed in ways and could always stand improvement.

> Discussions like this are healthy for the System and can and likely do lead

> to

> improvement of said System. Trashing the System ad nausea is just that

> trash.

>

> Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> FF/NREMT-B/FSI/ FF/

> Owner and President of LNM Emergency Services Consulting Services (LNMECS)

> Freelance Consultant/Trainer/ Freelance Cons Freelance Consultant/Traine

>

> LNMolino@...

>

> (Cell Phone)

> (IFW/TFW/FSS Office)

> (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax)

>

> The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

> author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

> organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with

> unless I

> specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only

> for its

> stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

> retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by

> the

> original author.

>

> ************ ******** ******** ************<wbr>*********<wbr>*********<wbr>

> *

> products.

> (http://money.http://money.<wbhttp://money.http://monhttp://money.<wbhttp)

>

>

[Guest guest]

In my opinion, the skills tests measure competence with the mechanical

process of performing the skill. They do not measure a candidate's understanding

of the skill, nor the understanding of the indications and contraindications of

performing the intervention.

Until we get away from technical application of skills, we are destined to

remain TECHNICIANS. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to discussion.

Speaking as a " professional " lawyer working for state government, I could

probably make more as a HVAC " technician " or plumber. LOL

-Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, NREMT-P

In a message dated 11/27/2007 7:37:14 P.M. Central Standard Time,

ben6308@... writes:

Gene, I couldn't have said it better myself. Someone else mentioned how

the skills check should be a part of the class, not the responsibility

of the registry.

Furthermore, what exactly do we gain from a " skills test " ? Confidence

that the candidate knows how to intubate? If the registry is so

concerned that educational programs don't have enough checks and

balances, the logical solution would be to fix that.

But I know, it's all easier said than done.

-Ben Oakley

_wegandy1938@wegandy_ (mailto:wegandy1938@...) wrote:

>

> Can someone tell me, please, why we should have a skills examination? Do

> the nurses have one? Do the respiratory therapists have one? Do the

> physicians have one? Do the dentists have one? Do the vets have one?

>

> No. They gain skills verification through many observations of the skill

> being performed. That is the ONLY way that skill verification is

> meaningful.

> The sort of skill verification we are doing now is a total waste of

> time and

> money.

>

> When I used to run the program at TJC, we used the skill checkoff as a

> vehicle to allow the student to BEGIN doing skills both in the field

> and during

> scenario practice. Every student's files contained records of numerous

> observations of each skill being performed. For example, the student

> had to

> demonstrate the ability to start IVs in the classroom, on fellow

> students, prior to

> going to skills practice in the field, and then a minimum number of

> IVs had to be

> observed and documented and validated by preceptors.

>

> The idea of a " one time with one retest " skill exam is ludicrous.

>

> If a young friend of ours had gone through a process similar to the one I

> outlined, there would have been no question about his abilities to

> perform a

> skill and no exam would have been needed.

>

> We pretend to be educators, yet we ignore many basic facts that educators

> know. One snapshot of a person performing a skill is virtually

> worthless as a

> predictor of field performance.

>

> I, as an EMS educator and coordinator, take my responsibility for my

> students

> much more seriously than that. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not

> they

> can start an IV on the arm and get through all the right moves in a

> testing

> situation. I want to KNOW that they can do it in the ambulance, moving

> down

> the road, successive times in a row, as verified by somebody who is there

> watching them. And that goes for all the other skills.

>

> We could do it that way if we had the interest and the will. But we want

> shortcuts. I remember when these arguments came up years ago, and the

> medical

> directors insisted that we have a " snap " that they could rely upon to

> tell

> them their delegee was OK. I told them they were deluding themselves

> and living

> in a dream world, but they didn't believe me.

>

> Our focus should be on how our students react with patients, not manikins.

>

> GG

>

> In a message dated 11/27/07 8:08:44 AM, _lnmolino@..._

(mailto:lnmolino@...)

> <mailto:lnmolino%mailto:ln> writes:

>

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 11/27/2007 8:42:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,

> > mhudson@mesquiteisd mhudson@mes

> >

> > NR reps could be an option if a program did not want to do skills

> > verification, or Dishes decided the program was unable to conduct a

> fair

> > skills exam.

> >

> > One solution to this can be found in other States (yes other states

> can do

> > things in ways that Texas could adopt and adapt to fit our needs).

> >

> > In New Jersey when the skills test comes due they are conducted at

> the site

> > of the course with the skills being done with the same equipment

> that was

> > used

> > in that course. All equipment is approved by the State OEMS of

> course but

> > you have choices such as a KED versus a XP-1 or a Hare versus a

> Sager etc.

> > This

> > eliminates any issues with regard to variations in equipment so Students

> > don't need to worry about having never seen a given piece of gear on

> test

> > day,

> > we know where this issue has caused a Student issues recently.

> >

> > The Instructors and Course Coordinator (different from the way we do

> that

> > title here in Texas mind you, as it's not a level of Certification

> but a

> > title

> > based on the Program in question) that taught in the class are not

> allowed

> > to

> > skill test at this point they are there for Student and equipment

> > coordination and logistics only. The state OEMS (= to DSHS) brings in

> > Certified Skill

> > Examiners from other regions of the state and they administer the test.

> > There

> > is a pre-qualifications process to be allowed to do this but I am

> not sure

> > what that is but all EMT Skill examiners but be EMT's and must be EMS

> > Instructors.

> >

> > Like the NR if you fail a station that day you are allowed a re-test

> that

> > day with different Skill Examiner, 1 re- test I think was the limit

> with a

> > maximum of 2 Skill stations failed in a given test day but since I

> never

> > dealt

> > with that I am not sure on the numbers.

> >

> > In Pennsylvania they use similar rules and again have a similar process.

> >

> > I for one prefer the idea of a Skill Examiner that has not been

> involved in

> > the teaching of the class for the simple reason that we are making the

> > Student

> > perform this skill under some additional pressure that while not

> akin to a

> > real Patient scenario does add that extra bit of can they deal with

> pressure

> > to the Skill Testing environment.

> >

> > The current system is flawed in ways and could always stand improvement.

> > Discussions like this are healthy for the System and can and likely

> do lead

> > to

> > improvement of said System. Trashing the System ad nausea is just that

> > trash.

> >

> > Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/ FF/

> > Owner and President of LNM Emergency Services Consulting Services

> (LNMECS)

> > Freelance Consultant/Trainer/ Freelance Cons Freelance Consultant/Traine

> >

> > _LNMolino@..._ (mailto:LNMolino@...) <mailto:LNMolino%mailto:LN>

> >

> > (Cell Phone)

> > (IFW/TFW/FSS Office)

> > (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax)

> >

> > The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author

> and the

> > author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

> > organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated

> with

> > unless I

> > specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is

> intended only

> > for its

> > stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

> > retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public

> domain by

> > the

> > original author.

> >

> > ************ ******** ********

> ************<wbr>********<<wbr><WBR>****<wbr>

> > *

> > products.

> > (_http://money.http://money._ (http://money.http//money.)

> <_http://money.http://money._ (http://money.http//money.)

><_wbhttp://money.wbhttp://money.wbhttp:/_

(wbhttp://money.http://monhttp://money.)

> <_wbhttp://money.wbhttp://money.wbhttp:/_

(wbhttp://money.http://monhttp://money.) ><wbhttp)

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> ************ **** **** ***

> Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest

> products.

>

> (_http://money.http://money.<WBhttp://money.http://monhttp://money.<WBhttp_

(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

> <_http://money.http://money.<WBhttp://money.http://monhttp://money.<WBhttp_

(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) >)

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene, I couldn't have said it better myself. Someone else mentioned how

the skills check should be a part of the class, not the responsibility

of the registry.

Furthermore, what exactly do we gain from a " skills test " ? Confidence

that the candidate knows how to intubate? If the registry is so

concerned that educational programs don't have enough checks and

balances, the logical solution would be to fix that.

But I know, it's all easier said than done.

-Ben Oakley

wegandy1938@... wrote:

>

> Can someone tell me, please, why we should have a skills examination? Do

> the nurses have one? Do the respiratory therapists have one? Do the

> physicians have one? Do the dentists have one? Do the vets have one?

>

> No. They gain skills verification through many observations of the skill

> being performed. That is the ONLY way that skill verification is

> meaningful.

> The sort of skill verification we are doing now is a total waste of

> time and

> money.

>

> When I used to run the program at TJC, we used the skill checkoff as a

> vehicle to allow the student to BEGIN doing skills both in the field

> and during

> scenario practice. Every student's files contained records of numerous

> observations of each skill being performed. For example, the student

> had to

> demonstrate the ability to start IVs in the classroom, on fellow

> students, prior to

> going to skills practice in the field, and then a minimum number of

> IVs had to be

> observed and documented and validated by preceptors.

>

> The idea of a " one time with one retest " skill exam is ludicrous.

>

> If a young friend of ours had gone through a process similar to the one I

> outlined, there would have been no question about his abilities to

> perform a

> skill and no exam would have been needed.

>

> We pretend to be educators, yet we ignore many basic facts that educators

> know. One snapshot of a person performing a skill is virtually

> worthless as a

> predictor of field performance.

>

> I, as an EMS educator and coordinator, take my responsibility for my

> students

> much more seriously than that. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not

> they

> can start an IV on the arm and get through all the right moves in a

> testing

> situation. I want to KNOW that they can do it in the ambulance, moving

> down

> the road, successive times in a row, as verified by somebody who is there

> watching them. And that goes for all the other skills.

>

> We could do it that way if we had the interest and the will. But we want

> shortcuts. I remember when these arguments came up years ago, and the

> medical

> directors insisted that we have a " snap " that they could rely upon to

> tell

> them their delegee was OK. I told them they were deluding themselves

> and living

> in a dream world, but they didn't believe me.

>

> Our focus should be on how our students react with patients, not manikins.

>

> GG

>

> In a message dated 11/27/07 8:08:44 AM, lnmolino@...

> <mailto:lnmolino%40aol.com> writes:

>

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 11/27/2007 8:42:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,

> > mhudson@mesquiteisdmhud writes:

> >

> > NR reps could be an option if a program did not want to do skills

> > verification, or Dishes decided the program was unable to conduct a

> fair

> > skills exam.

> >

> > One solution to this can be found in other States (yes other states

> can do

> > things in ways that Texas could adopt and adapt to fit our needs).

> >

> > In New Jersey when the skills test comes due they are conducted at

> the site

> > of the course with the skills being done with the same equipment

> that was

> > used

> > in that course. All equipment is approved by the State OEMS of

> course but

> > you have choices such as a KED versus a XP-1 or a Hare versus a

> Sager etc.

> > This

> > eliminates any issues with regard to variations in equipment so Students

> > don't need to worry about having never seen a given piece of gear on

> test

> > day,

> > we know where this issue has caused a Student issues recently.

> >

> > The Instructors and Course Coordinator (different from the way we do

> that

> > title here in Texas mind you, as it's not a level of Certification

> but a

> > title

> > based on the Program in question) that taught in the class are not

> allowed

> > to

> > skill test at this point they are there for Student and equipment

> > coordination and logistics only. The state OEMS (= to DSHS) brings in

> > Certified Skill

> > Examiners from other regions of the state and they administer the test.

> > There

> > is a pre-qualifications process to be allowed to do this but I am

> not sure

> > what that is but all EMT Skill examiners but be EMT's and must be EMS

> > Instructors.

> >

> > Like the NR if you fail a station that day you are allowed a re-test

> that

> > day with different Skill Examiner, 1 re- test I think was the limit

> with a

> > maximum of 2 Skill stations failed in a given test day but since I

> never

> > dealt

> > with that I am not sure on the numbers.

> >

> > In Pennsylvania they use similar rules and again have a similar process.

> >

> > I for one prefer the idea of a Skill Examiner that has not been

> involved in

> > the teaching of the class for the simple reason that we are making the

> > Student

> > perform this skill under some additional pressure that while not

> akin to a

> > real Patient scenario does add that extra bit of can they deal with

> pressure

> > to the Skill Testing environment.

> >

> > The current system is flawed in ways and could always stand improvement.

> > Discussions like this are healthy for the System and can and likely

> do lead

> > to

> > improvement of said System. Trashing the System ad nausea is just that

> > trash.

> >

> > Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/ FF/

> > Owner and President of LNM Emergency Services Consulting Services

> (LNMECS)

> > Freelance Consultant/Trainer/ Freelance Cons Freelance Consultant/Traine

> >

> > LNMolino@... <mailto:LNMolino%40aol.LNM>

> >

> > (Cell Phone)

> > (IFW/TFW/FSS Office)

> > (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax)

> >

> > The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author

> and the

> > author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

> > organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated

> with

> > unless I

> > specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is

> intended only

> > for its

> > stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

> > retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public

> domain by

> > the

> > original author.

> >

> > ************ ******** ********

> ************<wbr>*********<wbr>*********<wbr>

> > *

> > products.

> > (http://money.http://money.

> <http://money.http://money.><wbhttp://money.http://monhttp://money.

> <wbhttp://money.http://monhttp://money.><wbhttp)

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Lou:

Touche! This just one reason why we need to get our Texas EMS test back as a

primary requirement for certification.NR needs to be an optional secondary route

we can use. I taught by the crawl, walk,and run method. A student medic needs to

go through these stages to be proficient. Patience, on the part of preceptor is

important. Students improve by repitition that guides them toward success. This

is my 2 pennies. REGARDS,rabbiems.

Re: The Skills Test Issue (WAS: Re: A Longhorn says Gig

'Em)

Can someone tell me, please, why we should have a skills examination? Do

the nurses have one? Do the respiratory therapists have one? Do the

physicians have one? Do the dentists have one? Do the vets have one?

No. They gain skills verification through many observations of the skill

being performed. That is the ONLY way that skill verification is meaningful.

The sort of skill verification we are doing now is a total waste of time and

money.

When I used to run the program at TJC, we used the skill checkoff as a

vehicle to allow the student to BEGIN doing skills both in the field and during

scenario practice. Every student's files contained records of numerous

observations of each skill being performed. For example, the student had to

demonstrate the ability to start IVs in the classroom, on fellow students, prior

to

going to skills practice in the field, and then a minimum number of IVs had to

be

observed and documented and validated by preceptors.

The idea of a " one time with one retest " skill exam is ludicrous.

If a young friend of ours had gone through a process similar to the one I

outlined, there would have been no question about his abilities to perform a

skill and no exam would have been needed.

We pretend to be educators, yet we ignore many basic facts that educators

know. One snapshot of a person performing a skill is virtually worthless as a

predictor of field performance.

I, as an EMS educator and coordinator, take my responsibility for my students

much more seriously than that. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not they

can start an IV on the arm and get through all the right moves in a testing

situation. I want to KNOW that they can do it in the ambulance, moving down

the road, successive times in a row, as verified by somebody who is there

watching them. And that goes for all the other skills.

We could do it that way if we had the interest and the will. But we want

shortcuts. I remember when these arguments came up years ago, and the medical

directors insisted that we have a " snap " that they could rely upon to tell

them their delegee was OK. I told them they were deluding themselves and living

in a dream world, but they didn't believe me.

Our focus should be on how our students react with patients, not manikins.

GG

>

>

> In a message dated 11/27/2007 8:42:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,

> mhudson@mesquiteisdmhud writes:

>

> NR reps could be an option if a program did not want to do skills

> verification, or Dishes decided the program was unable to conduct a fair

> skills exam.

>

> One solution to this can be found in other States (yes other states can do

> things in ways that Texas could adopt and adapt to fit our needs).

>

> In New Jersey when the skills test comes due they are conducted at the site

> of the course with the skills being done with the same equipment that was

> used

> in that course. All equipment is approved by the State OEMS of course but

> you have choices such as a KED versus a XP-1 or a Hare versus a Sager etc.

> This

> eliminates any issues with regard to variations in equipment so Students

> don't need to worry about having never seen a given piece of gear on test

> day,

> we know where this issue has caused a Student issues recently.

>

> The Instructors and Course Coordinator (different from the way we do that

> title here in Texas mind you, as it's not a level of Certification but a

> title

> based on the Program in question) that taught in the class are not allowed

> to

> skill test at this point they are there for Student and equipment

> coordination and logistics only. The state OEMS (= to DSHS) brings in

> Certified Skill

> Examiners from other regions of the state and they administer the test.

> There

> is a pre-qualifications process to be allowed to do this but I am not sure

> what that is but all EMT Skill examiners but be EMT's and must be EMS

> Instructors.

>

> Like the NR if you fail a station that day you are allowed a re-test that

> day with different Skill Examiner, 1 re- test I think was the limit with a

> maximum of 2 Skill stations failed in a given test day but since I never

> dealt

> with that I am not sure on the numbers.

>

> In Pennsylvania they use similar rules and again have a similar process.

>

> I for one prefer the idea of a Skill Examiner that has not been involved in

> the teaching of the class for the simple reason that we are making the

> Student

> perform this skill under some additional pressure that while not akin to a

> real Patient scenario does add that extra bit of can they deal with pressure

> to the Skill Testing environment.

>

> The current system is flawed in ways and could always stand improvement.

> Discussions like this are healthy for the System and can and likely do lead

> to

> improvement of said System. Trashing the System ad nausea is just that

> trash.

>

> Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> FF/NREMT-B/FSI/ FF/

> Owner and President of LNM Emergency Services Consulting Services (LNMECS)

> Freelance Consultant/Trainer/ Freelance Cons Freelance Consultant/Traine

>

> LNMolino@...

>

> (Cell Phone)

> (IFW/TFW/FSS Office)

> (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax)

>

> The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

> author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

> organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with

> unless I

> specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only

> for its

> stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

> retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by

> the

> original author.

>

> ************ ******** ******** ************<wbr>*********<wbr>*********<wbr>

> *

> products.

> (http://money.http://money.<wbhttp://money.http://monhttp://money.<wbhttp)

>

>