Guest guest Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Question - With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR audits? -MH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Because when Texas surrendered to the NR " Borg, " we gave that up. No other reason. Of course with thousands of EMS providers in our state, I don't think it's unreasonable to open up negotiation on that. Would they be flexible? Maybe not, but without asking, the answer's still going to be no. -Wes Skills Testing Question - With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR audits? -MH ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 The answer to most questions is money!!! ---- Hudson wrote: > Question - > > With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required > to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills > testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced > Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted > (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR > audits? > > -MH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Ask Mr. Brown, Mr. Margolis, Mr. Wagoner, and Mr. Dickison that. In case you don't recognize those names, they are the Gang of Four that run NREMT. Hey, Bill, Gregg, Rob, and Phil.....just kidding.....really. I frankly don't know the thinking behind this rule. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I haven't heard them. Today I took a student through an exhausting series of sessions in static and dynamic cardiology, scenario practice, and mega-code practice. She did better than lots of certified NREMT medics I know would have done. So why should I not be able to certify her as being minimally competent to practice those skills? She also read a plethora of 12-leads (not even required for NREMT) and correctly identified MIs in all regions, left ventricular hypertrophy, axis deviation, stress patterns, and bundle branch blocks. She can read possible pericarditis from a 12-lead chart, yet, she will have to pay money to have me or some other examiner once again take a look at her through ONE snapshot. I perfer to see videotape or DVD length performances. That tells me a whole lot more than a snapshot does, but that's what NREMT wants. A snapshot. What's wrong with this picture? Gene G. > > Question - > > With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required > to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills > testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced > Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted > (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR > audits? > > -MH > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Could it be all about someone wanting a piece of the pie the way they want it cut ? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Just my .01 cents worth. wegandy1938@... wrote: Ask Mr. Brown, Mr. Margolis, Mr. Wagoner, and Mr. Dickison that. In case you don't recognize those names, they are the Gang of Four that run NREMT. Hey, Bill, Gregg, Rob, and Phil.....just kidding.....really. I frankly don't know the thinking behind this rule. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I haven't heard them. Today I took a student through an exhausting series of sessions in static and dynamic cardiology, scenario practice, and mega-code practice. She did better than lots of certified NREMT medics I know would have done. So why should I not be able to certify her as being minimally competent to practice those skills? She also read a plethora of 12-leads (not even required for NREMT) and correctly identified MIs in all regions, left ventricular hypertrophy, axis deviation, stress patterns, and bundle branch blocks. She can read possible pericarditis from a 12-lead chart, yet, she will have to pay money to have me or some other examiner once again take a look at her through ONE snapshot. I perfer to see videotape or DVD length performances. That tells me a whole lot more than a snapshot does, but that's what NREMT wants. A snapshot. What's wrong with this picture? Gene G. > > Question - > > With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required > to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills > testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced > Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted > (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR > audits? > > -MH > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 The only concern I have is that if we " clean up the system, " we'll end up making the standards such that only the colleges have the resources to comply with the standards. We need college-level courses for EMS, but they don't necessarily need to be taught by the colleges. Remember, Mongo the EMT could be adjunct faculty for the community college with his GED and EMT and you could have Gene teaching at the " for profit " program. Oh wait, that already happens. -Wes In a message dated 1/10/2007 1:57:36 PM Central Standard Time, THEDUDMAN@... writes: Gene, I certainly understand your issues...but I do not personally think any coordinator should be allowed to skills test their own students...at any level. " Back in the old days " ...when I tested other instructors and coordinators come in to test students to avoid any bias. As long as Texas has an open door policy on who can teach EMS classes and there is only minimal qualifications and absolutely no true measurment of need for more or less coordinators, AND we are publishing NR pass standards for all to see....I don't think that students should be tested by those who stand to gain by their successful completion. This isn't pointed at any one program and our own in-house program for basics certainly has benefited from the current system...but we have to clean up who is doing the teaching before we can be sure that we have a cadre of institutions (not colleges...necesarrThis isn't pointed at any one program and our own in-house program for basics certainly has benefited from the current system.. I wish all coordinators and EMS instructors were as ethical and devoted as you and many others on this list serve to creating EMS professionals.I wish all coordinators and EMS instructors were as ethical and devoted as you and many others on this list serve to creating EMS professionals.<WBR>...then this wouldn't be an issue...for Texas, Dudley -----Original Message----- From: _wegandy1938@wegandy_ (mailto:wegandy1938@...) To: _texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem_ (mailto:texasems-l ) Sent: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 7:23 PM Subject: Re: Skills Testing Ask Mr. Brown, Mr. Margolis, Mr. Wagoner, and Mr. Dickison that. In case you don't recognize those names, they are the Gang of Four that run NREMT. Hey, Bill, Gregg, Rob, and Phil.....just kidding.....Hey, Bi I frankly don't know the thinking behind this rule. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I haven't heard them. Today I took a student through an exhausting series of sessions in static and dynamic cardiology, scenario practice, and mega-code practice. She did better than lots of certified NREMT medics I know would have done. So why should I not be able to certify her as being minimally competent to practice those skills? She also read a plethora of 12-leads (not even required for NREMT) and correctly identified MIs in all regions, left ventricular hypertrophy, axis deviation, stress patterns, and bundle branch blocks. She can read possible pericarditis from a 12-lead chart, yet, she will have to pay money to have me or some other examiner once again take a look at her through ONE snapshot. I perfer to see videotape or DVD length performances. That tells me a whole lot more than a snapshot does, but that's what NREMT wants. A snapshot. What's wrong with this picture? Gene G. In a message dated 1/8/07 12:50:38 PM, _mhudson@mesquiteisdmhud_ (mailto:mhudson@...) writes: > > Question - > > With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required > to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills > testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced > Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted > (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR > audits? > > -MH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 In a message dated 1/10/2007 2:37:42 P.M. Central Standard Time, ExLngHrn@... writes: Remember, Mongo the EMT could be adjunct faculty for the community college with his GED and EMT Hey I semi resemble that remark But Mongo generally is a Truckie and I was and will ALWAYS be a Rescue Company kind of guy . (Think of ny Gage's speech early in the premier of Emergency ) Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large LNMolino@... (Cell Phone) (Home Phone) (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Ethically I don't think ANY Instructor let alone Coordinator should EVER be in the testing process when certification is on the line nor do I feel they should do testing in the process of the course itself. In my EMT-I(85) course (I was the student) no Skills Instructor was allowed to test any student that they had a part in teaching the skill in question. One Instructor in the course never lectured nor participated in skills labs and did nothing but skills testing as needed. Now since this was a class on the Fire Field at TEEX they had a bit of a luxury as we had a plethora of certified EMS Instructors on hand to do testing at anytime we needed them and it gave folks like WMD EMS Instructors to " keep their hands " in the " regular EMS teaching world (which we loved to do I must add, I did this in several Basic and even P courses in my tenure at TEEX). On the other hand we had a bit of a problem when I was teaching an TxDOT Funded EMT-B class off site where I was the Lead Instructor (I had left TEEX as a FT employee and was serving at this point as a Contractor). Hurricane Katrina hit and several of the other folks " assigned " to the class were deployed to points east of College Station. We were again lucky in that we had the instructional resources to get other EMS Instructors to fill the voids where needed but it was a bit of a logistical nightmare still. In some cases like the above I can see where real world issues might require that Skills Instructors that were a part of the teaching team test their own students, I cold live with that to a degree BUT not in a certification testing scenario. When I was first certified a an EMT-A in New Jersey in 1981 (that was when the world was a younger still cooling planet) the state of NJ had this method in place for the Certifications Testing procedure. The Local EMS Program (oh and at that time most were based in 2-year colleges at the EMT-A level) would supply their Instructors to be the mock Patients. The State OEMS Rep would contact Program Coordinators of several programs randomly selected from around the state (now remember New Jersey can fit between Dallas and Houston for the most part) to provide their Instructors to be the Skill's Evaluators. The State OEMS Rep was ALWAYS present onsite and a list of students was always posted for the Skill evaluators to check for anyone that they might know so as to assure that if anyone knew a student or was related they would not be involved in the testing etc. We rarely had issues back them with folks screaming any kinds of fouls etc. I strongly advocate third parties in any testing but certainly in the Certifications Process. Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large LNMolino@... (Cell Phone) (Home Phone) (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 I have students who have taken ACLS and become instructors based on their performance in the course. Without a doubt, any of the people who complete our programs Cardiology and Pharmacology section are tested repeatedly on these skills. I don't see the reason to continue testing the way it is done. It seriously complicates the process and is extremely expensive to the students, not to mention the program that host's the event! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Gene, I certainly understand your issues...but I do not personally think any coordinator should be allowed to skills test their own students...at any level. " Back in the old days " ...when I tested other instructors and coordinators come in to test students to avoid any bias. As long as Texas has an open door policy on who can teach EMS classes and there is only minimal qualifications and absolutely no true measurment of need for more or less coordinators, AND we are publishing NR pass standards for all to see....I don't think that students should be tested by those who stand to gain by their successful completion. This isn't pointed at any one program and our own in-house program for basics certainly has benefited from the current system...but we have to clean up who is doing the teaching before we can be sure that we have a cadre of institutions (not colleges...necesarrily) that are dedicated to creating successful pre-hospital professionals who we feel are capable of non-biased skills testing. I wish all coordinators and EMS instructors were as ethical and devoted as you and many others on this list serve to creating EMS professionals....then this wouldn't be an issue...for Texas, NR, or anyone...but as long as we allow any " garage " paramedic class to be done...then we have to take precautions at the lowest common denominator. Dudley Re: Skills Testing Ask Mr. Brown, Mr. Margolis, Mr. Wagoner, and Mr. Dickison that. In case you don't recognize those names, they are the Gang of Four that run NREMT. Hey, Bill, Gregg, Rob, and Phil.....just kidding.....really. I frankly don't know the thinking behind this rule. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I haven't heard them. Today I took a student through an exhausting series of sessions in static and dynamic cardiology, scenario practice, and mega-code practice. She did better than lots of certified NREMT medics I know would have done. So why should I not be able to certify her as being minimally competent to practice those skills? She also read a plethora of 12-leads (not even required for NREMT) and correctly identified MIs in all regions, left ventricular hypertrophy, axis deviation, stress patterns, and bundle branch blocks. She can read possible pericarditis from a 12-lead chart, yet, she will have to pay money to have me or some other examiner once again take a look at her through ONE snapshot. I perfer to see videotape or DVD length performances. That tells me a whole lot more than a snapshot does, but that's what NREMT wants. A snapshot. What's wrong with this picture? Gene G. > > Question - > > With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required > to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills > testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced > Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted > (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR > audits? > > -MH > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Except for Don Elbert, you're all missing my point. What I said was that " final testing " is but a snapshot of a person's abilities, and we need the whole DVD. Who administers the " skill testing " to physicians? The answer is that they demonstrate their skills reliably over a sufficient period of time, to enough different people, that they are deemed by consensus to be ready to cut loose. To have one's career depend upon one skill session administered by someone who has never seen the person perform before is ludicrous. Years ago before the NREMT cleaned up its act, some testing sites had a real scam going. Nobody ever passed the skills the first time. This meant another trip, another fee paid, and more money in the pocket for the testing site. This happened in two states adjacent to Texas but it stopped miraculously when Texas sites, particularly East Texas Medical Center, began doing the tests fairly. I am saying that in any paramedic level program skill performance should be monitored multiple times, under multiple situations, and documented. Have you ever heard of a nursing degree program that brings in people from the outside to test their nursing skills? I worked steps away from a premier, accredited nursing program for 13 years and I never once saw that happen. As long as we treat paramedic education as just EMT education " super-sized " we'll never get to the level where we need to be. We probably never will anyway, because the EBM folks have already decided that we don't make a difference in anything anyway, and the moves to dismantle paramedic based services are already under way. Gene G. > > Ethically I don't think ANY Instructor let alone Coordinator should EVER be > in the testing process when certification is on the line nor do I feel they > should do testing in the process of the course itself. > > In my EMT-I(85) course (I was the student) no Skills Instructor was allowed > to test any student that they had a part in teaching the skill in question. > One Instructor in the course never lectured nor participated in skills labs > and > did nothing but skills testing as needed. > > Now since this was a class on the Fire Field at TEEX they had a bit of a > luxury as we had a plethora of certified EMS Instructors on hand to do > testing > at anytime we needed them and it gave folks like WMD EMS Instructors to > " keep > their hands " in the " regular EMS teaching world (which we loved to do I must > add, I did this in several Basic and even P courses in my tenure at TEEX). > > On the other hand we had a bit of a problem when I was teaching an TxDOT > Funded EMT-B class off site where I was the Lead Instructor (I had left TEEX > as > a FT employee and was serving at this point as a Contractor). Hurricane > Katrina hit and several of the other folks " assigned " to the class were > deployed > to points east of College Station. We were again lucky in that we had the > instructional resources to get other EMS Instructors to fill the voids where > needed but it was a bit of a logistical nightmare still. > > In some cases like the above I can see where real world issues might require > that Skills Instructors that were a part of the teaching team test their own > students, I cold live with that to a degree BUT not in a certification > testing scenario. > > When I was first certified a an EMT-A in New Jersey in 1981 (that was when > the world was a younger still cooling planet) the state of NJ had this > method > in place for the Certifications Testing procedure. The Local EMS Program (oh > and at that time most were based in 2-year colleges at the EMT-A level) > would > supply their Instructors to be the mock Patients. The State OEMS Rep would > contact Program Coordinators of several programs randomly selected from > around > the state (now remember New Jersey can fit between Dallas and Houston for > the most part) to provide their Instructors to be the Skill's Evaluators. > The > State OEMS Rep was ALWAYS present onsite and a list of students was always > posted for the Skill evaluators to check for anyone that they might know so > as > to assure that if anyone knew a student or was related they would not be > involved in the testing etc. We rarely had issues back them with folks > screaming > any kinds of fouls etc. > > I strongly advocate third parties in any testing but certainly in the > Certifications Process. > > Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/ FF/ > Freelance Consultant/Trainer/ Freelance Cons Freelance Consultant/Train > Buddhist philosopher at-large > LNMolino@... > > (Cell Phone) > (Home Phone) > (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) > (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) > > " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " > > " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds > discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) > > 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Happy New Year guys, It does make sense to have others test our students despite our knowing exactly what their competency level is beforehand. And it should make the process more defenseable. But I think like you do on that one, Gene. And it's not hard to buy into the problem of one " snapshot " making or breaking them. I don't like that aspect of the process. One thing goofy about my not being able to test my own - or Gene Gandy testing his own - or Blaine testing his own, etc., etc. - is that most test sites (naturally) utilize faculty who know the candidates already. They're often friends or co-workers. We use our staff to test our staff too. We have to - to get the job done. Sometimes they're outside staff but not the majority of 'em. And we want our staff as faculty - we know them and know the best ones to use. It would be ridiculous if we had to use outside staff only. No one's test sites would occur (without losing a ton of money) paying folks to drive long distances to come to your site & be an examiner. And who says they'll be as fair & accurate in the testing as the ones who I know. I feel like like I might be the more difficult examiner if I COULD examine my own. Not that I would seek to be. And I'd really like the relief of knowing exactly how my students did and know they didn't get hosed by some jerk with an attitude who decided to fail my student in the oral medical emergency station that leaves a world of things to personal subjectivity. Maybe that's why the station requires 2 examiners in the room. We would all like everything to be graded fairly but people are people and it doesn't always happen. If we take this discussion towards all of the problems associated with skills testing - not to mention the skills set the NR arrived at to begin with (and their scoresheets) - we'll be corresponding to each other for a long time. Fair....just give me fair if you're testing my students. Don, Tyler >>> 01/10/07 1:44 PM >>> Gene, I certainly understand your issues...but I do not personally think any coordinator should be allowed to skills test their own students...at any level. " Back in the old days " ...when I tested other instructors and coordinators come in to test students to avoid any bias. As long as Texas has an open door policy on who can teach EMS classes and there is only minimal qualifications and absolutely no true measurment of need for more or less coordinators, AND we are publishing NR pass standards for all to see....I don't think that students should be tested by those who stand to gain by their successful completion. This isn't pointed at any one program and our own in-house program for basics certainly has benefited from the current system...but we have to clean up who is doing the teaching before we can be sure that we have a cadre of institutions (not colleges...necesarrily) that are dedicated to creating successful pre-hospital professionals who we feel are capable of non-biased skills testing. I wish all coordinators and EMS instructors were as ethical and devoted as you and many others on this list serve to creating EMS professionals....then this wouldn't be an issue...for Texas, NR, or anyone...but as long as we allow any " garage " paramedic class to be done...then we have to take precautions at the lowest common denominator. Dudley Re: Skills Testing Ask Mr. Brown, Mr. Margolis, Mr. Wagoner, and Mr. Dickison that. In case you don't recognize those names, they are the Gang of Four that run NREMT. Hey, Bill, Gregg, Rob, and Phil.....just kidding.....really. I frankly don't know the thinking behind this rule. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I haven't heard them. Today I took a student through an exhausting series of sessions in static and dynamic cardiology, scenario practice, and mega-code practice. She did better than lots of certified NREMT medics I know would have done. So why should I not be able to certify her as being minimally competent to practice those skills? She also read a plethora of 12-leads (not even required for NREMT) and correctly identified MIs in all regions, left ventricular hypertrophy, axis deviation, stress patterns, and bundle branch blocks. She can read possible pericarditis from a 12-lead chart, yet, she will have to pay money to have me or some other examiner once again take a look at her through ONE snapshot. I perfer to see videotape or DVD length performances. That tells me a whole lot more than a snapshot does, but that's what NREMT wants. A snapshot. What's wrong with this picture? Gene G. > > Question - > > With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required > to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills > testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced > Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted > (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR > audits? > > -MH > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Dudley -- we're most likely in agreement. The devil, as they say, is in the details. It's in people's self-interest to write the rules to their benefit. All I'm saying is that the rules should be evenly applied so as not to benefit any one particular interest group. -Wes In a message dated 1/10/2007 9:05:56 PM Central Standard Time, THEDUDMAN@... writes: Not necessarily Wes....but to get involved in EMS overall...needs to be tightened up and the bar raised...appropriatNot necessarily Wes....but to get involved in EMS overall...needs to be tightened up and the bar raised...appropriat<WBR>e institutions (collegiate, private not for profit, private for profit, etc) should be able to do....that Not necessarily Wes....but to get involved in EMS overallN There are several places in Texas that are not collegiate that I feel would be appropriate places with tougher standards...There are several places in Texas that are not collegiate that I feel would be appropriate Dudley -----Original Message----- From: _ExLngHrn@..._ (mailto:ExLngHrn@...) To: _texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem_ (mailto:texasems-l ) Sent: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 2:31 PM Subject: Re: Skills Testing The only concern I have is that if we " clean up the system, " we'll end up making the standards such that only the colleges have the resources to comply with the standards. We need college-level courses for EMS, but they don't necessarily need to be taught by the colleges. Remember, Mongo the EMT could be adjunct faculty for the community college with his GED and EMT and you could have Gene teaching at the " for profit " program. Oh wait, that already happens. -Wes In a message dated 1/10/2007 1:57:36 PM Central Standard Time, _THEDUDMAN@..._ (mailto:THEDUDMAN@...) writes: Gene, I certainly understand your issues...but I do not personally think any coordinator should be allowed to skills test their own students...at any level. " Back in the old days " ...when I tested other instructors and coordinators come in to test students to avoid any bias. As long as Texas has an open door policy on who can teach EMS classes and there is only minimal qualifications and absolutely no true measurment of need for more or less coordinators, AND we are publishing NR pass standards for all to see....I don't think that students should be tested by those who stand to gain by their successful completion. This isn't pointed at any one program and our own in-house program for basics certainly has benefited from the current system...but we have to clean up who is doing the teaching before we can be sure that we have a cadre of institutions (not colleges...necesarrinstitutions (not colleges...necesarr<WBR>This isn own in-house program for basics certainly has benefited from the current system.. I wish all coordinators and EMS instructors were as ethical and devoted as you and many others on this list serve to creating EMS professionals.you and all coordinators and EMS instructors were as ethical and devoted as you and many others on this list serve to creating EMS professionals.<WBR>...then this wouldn't be an issue...for Texas, Dudley -----Original Message----- From: _wegandy1938@From: _wegandy193_wegandy1938@wegandy_ (mailto:wegandy1938@...) ) To: _texasems-l@To: _texasems-l@<WBR>_texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem_ (mailto:texasems-l ) ) Sent: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 7:23 PM Subject: Re: Skills Testing Ask Mr. Brown, Mr. Margolis, Mr. Wagoner, and Mr. Dickison that. In case you don't recognize those names, they are the Gang of Four that run NREMT. Hey, Bill, Gregg, Rob, and Phil.....just kidding.....Hey, Bi I frankly don't know the thinking behind this rule. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I haven't heard them. Today I took a student through an exhausting series of sessions in static and dynamic cardiology, scenario practice, and mega-code practice. She did better than lots of certified NREMT medics I know would have done. So why should I not be able to certify her as being minimally competent to practice those skills? She also read a plethora of 12-leads (not even required for NREMT) and correctly identified MIs in all regions, left ventricular hypertrophy, axis deviation, stress patterns, and bundle branch blocks. She can read possible pericarditis from a 12-lead chart, yet, she will have to pay money to have me or some other examiner once again take a look at her through ONE snapshot. I perfer to see videotape or DVD length performances. That tells me a whole lot more than a snapshot does, but that's what NREMT wants. A snapshot. What's wrong with this picture? Gene G. In a message dated 1/8/07 12:50:38 PM, _mhudson@mesquiteisIn a me (mailto:_mhudson@mesquiteisdmhud_ (mailto:mhudson@...) ) writes: > > Question - > > With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required > to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills > testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced > Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted > (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR > audits? > > -MH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 > > The only concern I have is that if we " clean up the system, " we'll > end up > making the standards such that only the colleges have the resources > to comply > with the standards. We need college-level courses for EMS, but they > don't > necessarily need to be taught by the colleges. Remember, Mongo the > EMT could > be adjunct faculty for the community college with his GED and EMT > and you > could have Gene teaching at the " for profit " program. Oh wait, that > already > happens. > Nursing has moved to an all-collegiate educational program. Obtaining an MD, DO or PA requires a collegiate education. We want paramedicine to be on par with nursing (and maybe PA), but we're not willing to concede that a collegiate education is necessary? Perhaps that is because we are fed a skewed idea of what college is, and what education is. Many, many " colleges " have popped up recently that exist outside the traditional educational systems (4-year universities, community colleges) and instead provide " private " education based on the guise of " independent accreditation. " So, we have people who " go to college " and " get an education " and " obtain a degree " (typically an Associate's), usually in " Business Administration " or " Computer Science " (being a Microsoft certification course, Cisco certification course, etc.) only to find that none of the credits transfer and that the " accredited private degree " is generally worthless. Even worse, it may be ILLEGAL for them to use under Texas law. The certifications are valid, however, so they default to working based on certification. How interesting that this parallels the current state of affairs in EMS - certification vs. licensure, " college " vs. college, " education " vs education. Am I against private EMS providers? As things currently stand, of course not. Private providers, unfortunately, are leading the charge with respect to enchanced educational requirements for EMS certification and licensure. The colleges, however, control the " degree programs, " and typically have lower costs and, to a degree, must by law have lower standards and accept anyone who meets admissions criteria set by a Board of Regents that wants to make money by providing an *adequate* education. What, if any, superior EMS programs exists at the college level, provide a 4-year degree as a part of the paramedic education process? I can think of zero. Why? There's no incentive for a paramedic to commit 4 years and $50,000 to get the education we demand of paramedics. It gets them nothing more than personal satisfaction... and I can get a lot of personal satisfaction for $50,000 in ways other than college. So, where does that leave us? With colleges providing " just enough " education to pass EMT's and paramedics, and private educators providing either substandard or significantly expanded education - both at a cost premium. What's the solution? We must, together as a profession, demand higher educational requirements. People screamed about requiring Associate's Degrees for paramedics... why shouldn't an Associate's Degree be required for an EMT Basic? That's essentially the " apprentice " level for EMS. Why don't we require Bachelor's Degrees for paramedics? If we're going to bother to fight the fight for education, why not go ahead and fight the whole fight? Mike :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Not necessarily Wes....but to get involved in EMS overall...needs to be tightened up and the bar raised...appropriate institutions (collegiate, private not for profit, private for profit, etc) should be able to do....that being said until that time I can't support allowing ALL institutions the ability to police, test, measure themselves....because any old Mongo the EMT could be teaching..... There are several places in Texas that are not collegiate that I feel would be appropriate places with tougher standards....those are the ones that are already doing it right because it is the right thing to do.... Dudley Re: Skills Testing Ask Mr. Brown, Mr. Margolis, Mr. Wagoner, and Mr. Dickison that. In case you don't recognize those names, they are the Gang of Four that run NREMT. Hey, Bill, Gregg, Rob, and Phil.....just kidding.....Hey, Bi I frankly don't know the thinking behind this rule. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I haven't heard them. Today I took a student through an exhausting series of sessions in static and dynamic cardiology, scenario practice, and mega-code practice. She did better than lots of certified NREMT medics I know would have done. So why should I not be able to certify her as being minimally competent to practice those skills? She also read a plethora of 12-leads (not even required for NREMT) and correctly identified MIs in all regions, left ventricular hypertrophy, axis deviation, stress patterns, and bundle branch blocks. She can read possible pericarditis from a 12-lead chart, yet, she will have to pay money to have me or some other examiner once again take a look at her through ONE snapshot. I perfer to see videotape or DVD length performances. That tells me a whole lot more than a snapshot does, but that's what NREMT wants. A snapshot. What's wrong with this picture? Gene G. In a message dated 1/8/07 12:50:38 PM, _mhudson@mesquiteisdmhud_ (mailto:mhudson@...) writes: > > Question - > > With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required > to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills > testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced > Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted > (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR > audits? > > -MH > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 THEDUDMAN@... wrote: ....because any old Mongo the EMT could be teaching..... " Mongo not know, Mongo merely pawn in game of life.... " (vbg) " A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences. " Proverbs 22:3 --------------------------------- Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 I think some are missing the point here. I have the students practice the skills until all are competent. Once they are perfect on the skills, then we test. It works great as they have had time to get it all down perfect or very close. Sometimes it is boring to the fast learners, yet I use them as helpers and they really like helping out. EMS is a team effort and this makes the class work together. If we do things the right way we do not need outside people to test our students. I do have other instructors that help so that they have the feel of testing in front of people they are not familiar with. It works very well and I stand by their competency. I do not see a need for NR skills testing if the programs are done in a similar setting. Just what works for my students Don ---- wegandy1938@... wrote: > Except for Don Elbert, you're all missing my point. > > What I said was that " final testing " is but a snapshot of a person's > abilities, and we need the whole DVD. > > Who administers the " skill testing " to physicians? > > The answer is that they demonstrate their skills reliably over a sufficient > period of time, to enough different people, that they are deemed by consensus > to be ready to cut loose. > > To have one's career depend upon one skill session administered by someone > who has never seen the person perform before is ludicrous. > > Years ago before the NREMT cleaned up its act, some testing sites had a real > scam going. Nobody ever passed the skills the first time. This meant > another trip, another fee paid, and more money in the pocket for the testing site. > This happened in two states adjacent to Texas but it stopped miraculously > when Texas sites, particularly East Texas Medical Center, began doing the tests > fairly. > > I am saying that in any paramedic level program skill performance should be > monitored multiple times, under multiple situations, and documented. > > Have you ever heard of a nursing degree program that brings in people from > the outside to test their nursing skills? I worked steps away from a premier, > accredited nursing program for 13 years and I never once saw that happen. > > As long as we treat paramedic education as just EMT education " super-sized " > we'll never get to the level where we need to be. > > We probably never will anyway, because the EBM folks have already decided > that we don't make a difference in anything anyway, and the moves to dismantle > paramedic based services are already under way. > > Gene G. > > > > > > > Ethically I don't think ANY Instructor let alone Coordinator should EVER be > > in the testing process when certification is on the line nor do I feel they > > should do testing in the process of the course itself. > > > > In my EMT-I(85) course (I was the student) no Skills Instructor was allowed > > to test any student that they had a part in teaching the skill in question. > > One Instructor in the course never lectured nor participated in skills labs > > and > > did nothing but skills testing as needed. > > > > Now since this was a class on the Fire Field at TEEX they had a bit of a > > luxury as we had a plethora of certified EMS Instructors on hand to do > > testing > > at anytime we needed them and it gave folks like WMD EMS Instructors to > > " keep > > their hands " in the " regular EMS teaching world (which we loved to do I must > > add, I did this in several Basic and even P courses in my tenure at TEEX). > > > > On the other hand we had a bit of a problem when I was teaching an TxDOT > > Funded EMT-B class off site where I was the Lead Instructor (I had left TEEX > > as > > a FT employee and was serving at this point as a Contractor). Hurricane > > Katrina hit and several of the other folks " assigned " to the class were > > deployed > > to points east of College Station. We were again lucky in that we had the > > instructional resources to get other EMS Instructors to fill the voids where > > needed but it was a bit of a logistical nightmare still. > > > > In some cases like the above I can see where real world issues might require > > that Skills Instructors that were a part of the teaching team test their own > > students, I cold live with that to a degree BUT not in a certification > > testing scenario. > > > > When I was first certified a an EMT-A in New Jersey in 1981 (that was when > > the world was a younger still cooling planet) the state of NJ had this > > method > > in place for the Certifications Testing procedure. The Local EMS Program (oh > > and at that time most were based in 2-year colleges at the EMT-A level) > > would > > supply their Instructors to be the mock Patients. The State OEMS Rep would > > contact Program Coordinators of several programs randomly selected from > > around > > the state (now remember New Jersey can fit between Dallas and Houston for > > the most part) to provide their Instructors to be the Skill's Evaluators. > > The > > State OEMS Rep was ALWAYS present onsite and a list of students was always > > posted for the Skill evaluators to check for anyone that they might know so > > as > > to assure that if anyone knew a student or was related they would not be > > involved in the testing etc. We rarely had issues back them with folks > > screaming > > any kinds of fouls etc. > > > > I strongly advocate third parties in any testing but certainly in the > > Certifications Process. > > > > Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET > > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/ FF/ > > Freelance Consultant/Trainer/ Freelance Cons Freelance Consultant/Train > > Buddhist philosopher at-large > > LNMolino@... > > > > (Cell Phone) > > (Home Phone) > > (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) > > (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) > > > > " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " > > > > " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds > > discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) > > > > 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Here here.....we do agree....not to benefit any one particular group....but to exclude detrimental folks/organizations....no matter what their basis.... Dudley Re: Skills Testing Ask Mr. Brown, Mr. Margolis, Mr. Wagoner, and Mr. Dickison that. In case you don't recognize those names, they are the Gang of Four that run NREMT. Hey, Bill, Gregg, Rob, and Phil.....just kidding.....Hey, Bi I frankly don't know the thinking behind this rule. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I haven't heard them. Today I took a student through an exhausting series of sessions in static and dynamic cardiology, scenario practice, and mega-code practice. She did better than lots of certified NREMT medics I know would have done. So why should I not be able to certify her as being minimally competent to practice those skills? She also read a plethora of 12-leads (not even required for NREMT) and correctly identified MIs in all regions, left ventricular hypertrophy, axis deviation, stress patterns, and bundle branch blocks. She can read possible pericarditis from a 12-lead chart, yet, she will have to pay money to have me or some other examiner once again take a look at her through ONE snapshot. I perfer to see videotape or DVD length performances. That tells me a whole lot more than a snapshot does, but that's what NREMT wants. A snapshot. What's wrong with this picture? Gene G. In a message dated 1/8/07 12:50:38 PM, _mhudson@mesquiteisIn a me (mailto:_mhudson@mesquiteisdmhud_ (mailto:mhudson@...) ) writes: > > Question - > > With CBT invoked on all certification levels, why are we still required > to have an NR rep preside over our ALS skills testing? Our skills > testing mechanism was not broken before NR arrived. If Advanced > Coordinators are trusted to conduct a program, why can't they be trusted > (as before) with conducting their own skills exam with random on-site NR > audits? > > -MH > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 In a message dated 1/11/2007 10:00:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, asclapius@... writes: Granted they were employed by said college, but the fact remains that I had no prior contact with them prior to the examination. As it should be! After all while you nursing career was in their hands the lives of your patients after you pass said tests and boards are in YOURS. I'm less concerned who pays an examiner then I am about your personal knowledge of the person before hand. I bet had you walked in and it was a coincidence that you were High School buddies with one of those examiners they'd not be involved in your testing. Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large LNMolino@... (Cell Phone) (Home Phone) (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 In a message dated 1/11/2007 11:27:41 A.M. Central Standard Time, delbert@... writes: The key to this is NOT having people who the candidates don't know - the key is having people with integrity. Sure in a perfect world but in a not so perfect thing called the real world one must always avoid the appearance of any impropriety just as one must lock ones doors knowing that the real bad guys will always get in anyway. It's practicing defensible education I guess in ways after all integrity ain't what it used to be or is it? . Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large LNMolino@... (Cell Phone) (Home Phone) (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 For what it's worth, I had a group of nurses that tested my nursing skills in a comprehensive 3-day clinical examination in Plano, TX while going through Excelsior College's AAS Nursing program. I had never met these individuals in my life, yet my nursing career hung on their approval. Granted they were employed by said college, but the fact remains that I had no prior contact with them prior to the examination. -Alfonso R. Ochoa > > Have you ever heard of a nursing degree program that brings in people from > the outside to test their nursing skills? I worked steps away from a premier, > accredited nursing program for 13 years and I never once saw that happen. > > > Gene G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 The key to this is NOT having people who the candidates don't know - the key is having people with integrity. >>> 01/11/07 10:03 AM >>> In a message dated 1/11/2007 10:00:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, asclapius@... writes: Granted they were employed by said college, but the fact remains that I had no prior contact with them prior to the examination. As it should be! After all while you nursing career was in their hands the lives of your patients after you pass said tests and boards are in YOURS. I'm less concerned who pays an examiner then I am about your personal knowledge of the person before hand. I bet had you walked in and it was a coincidence that you were High School buddies with one of those examiners they'd not be involved in your testing. Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large LNMolino@... (Cell Phone) (Home Phone) (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Defensible is a good thing. But - have we ever hear of a legal hearing of any sort generated by a perceived impropriety that an examiner knew the candidate & therefore just gave away a passing grade? I'd love to know if anyone has. Especially if it reached a courtroom. We might guess that somewhere in the course of history DSHS/TDH had complaints about improper skills testing but complaints from skills testing sessions come from those who were failed. In this imperfect world Lou - let's hope we never become restricted to a policy that might require us to only use that have never had contact with the students (how could that be guaranteed anyway?). If it were to happen - we would know the reason why it was done but I'm one that is certain it would be a dumb and needless policy and would create far more hardship than it would any benefit. Don >>> 01/11/07 11:32 AM >>> In a message dated 1/11/2007 11:27:41 A.M. Central Standard Time, delbert@... writes: The key to this is NOT having people who the candidates don't know - the key is having people with integrity. Sure in a perfect world but in a not so perfect thing called the real world one must always avoid the appearance of any impropriety just as one must lock ones doors knowing that the real bad guys will always get in anyway. It's practicing defensible education I guess in ways after all integrity ain't what it used to be or is it? . Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large LNMolino@... (Cell Phone) (Home Phone) (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 I got my AAS in Paramedicine in 1983. At that time, it was believed that Paramedicine would be one of the 'new' allied health programs with an AAS, like nursing, RT, RadTech, Lab Tech etc. What happened? Fire chiefs can not wait 2 years for a paramedic, and most services can not afford to pay someone for an AAS. I have wanted to see all paramedic programs go AAS since 1983. Unless people are being paid for their education and there is no mandate for an AAS, it will never happen. -MH >>> Mike 1/10/2007 4:20 pm >>> > > The only concern I have is that if we " clean up the system, " we'll > end up > making the standards such that only the colleges have the resources > to comply > with the standards. We need college-level courses for EMS, but they > don't > necessarily need to be taught by the colleges. Remember, Mongo the > EMT could > be adjunct faculty for the community college with his GED and EMT > and you > could have Gene teaching at the " for profit " program. Oh wait, that > already > happens. > Nursing has moved to an all-collegiate educational program. Obtaining an MD, DO or PA requires a collegiate education. We want paramedicine to be on par with nursing (and maybe PA), but we're not willing to concede that a collegiate education is necessary? Perhaps that is because we are fed a skewed idea of what college is, and what education is. Many, many " colleges " have popped up recently that exist outside the traditional educational systems (4-year universities, community colleges) and instead provide " private " education based on the guise of " independent accreditation. " So, we have people who " go to college " and " get an education " and " obtain a degree " (typically an Associate's), usually in " Business Administration " or " Computer Science " (being a Microsoft certification course, Cisco certification course, etc.) only to find that none of the credits transfer and that the " accredited private degree " is generally worthless. Even worse, it may be ILLEGAL for them to use under Texas law. The certifications are valid, however, so they default to working based on certification. How interesting that this parallels the current state of affairs in EMS - certification vs. licensure, " college " vs. college, " education " vs education. Am I against private EMS providers? As things currently stand, of course not. Private providers, unfortunately, are leading the charge with respect to enchanced educational requirements for EMS certification and licensure. The colleges, however, control the " degree programs, " and typically have lower costs and, to a degree, must by law have lower standards and accept anyone who meets admissions criteria set by a Board of Regents that wants to make money by providing an *adequate* education. What, if any, superior EMS programs exists at the college level, provide a 4-year degree as a part of the paramedic education process? I can think of zero. Why? There's no incentive for a paramedic to commit 4 years and $50,000 to get the education we demand of paramedics. It gets them nothing more than personal satisfaction... and I can get a lot of personal satisfaction for $50,000 in ways other than college. So, where does that leave us? With colleges providing " just enough " education to pass EMT's and paramedics, and private educators providing either substandard or significantly expanded education - both at a cost premium. What's the solution? We must, together as a profession, demand higher educational requirements. People screamed about requiring Associate's Degrees for paramedics... why shouldn't an Associate's Degree be required for an EMT Basic? That's essentially the " apprentice " level for EMS. Why don't we require Bachelor's Degrees for paramedics? If we're going to bother to fight the fight for education, why not go ahead and fight the whole fight? Mike :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 You cut straight to the chase. You nailed it! Gene > > I got my AAS in Paramedicine in 1983. At that time, it was believed > that Paramedicine would be one of the 'new' allied health programs with > an AAS, like nursing, RT, RadTech, Lab Tech etc. What happened? Fire > chiefs can not wait 2 years for a paramedic, and most services can not > afford to pay someone for an AAS. I have wanted to see all paramedic > programs go AAS since 1983. Unless people are being paid for their > education and there is no mandate for an AAS, it will never happen. > > -MH > > >>> Mike <paramedicop@paramedic> 1/10/2007 4:20 pm >>> > > > > > The only concern I have is that if we " clean up the system, " we'll > > end up > > making the standards such that only the colleges have the resources > > > to comply > > with the standards. We need college-level courses for EMS, but they > > > don't > > necessarily need to be taught by the colleges. Remember, Mongo the > > EMT could > > be adjunct faculty for the community college with his GED and EMT > > and you > > could have Gene teaching at the " for profit " program. Oh wait, that > > > already > > happens. > > > > Nursing has moved to an all-collegiate educational program. > Obtaining an MD, DO or PA requires a collegiate education. We want > paramedicine to be on par with nursing (and maybe PA), but we're not > willing to concede that a collegiate education is necessary? > > Perhaps that is because we are fed a skewed idea of what college is, > and what education is. Many, many " colleges " have popped up recently > > that exist outside the traditional educational systems (4-year > universities, community colleges) and instead provide " private " > education based on the guise of " independent accreditation. education > have people who " go to college " and " get an education " and " obtain a > degree " (typically an Associate's) degree " (typically an A > Administration " or " Computer Science " (being a Microsoft > certification course, Cisco certification course, etc.) only to find > that none of the credits transfer and that the " accredited private > degree " is generally worthless. Even worse, it may be ILLEGAL for > them to use under Texas law. The certifications are valid, however, > so they default to working based on certification. > > How interesting that this parallels the current state of affairs in > EMS - certification vs. licensure, " college " vs. college, " education " > > vs education. > > Am I against private EMS providers? As things currently stand, of > course not. Private providers, unfortunately, are leading the charge > > with respect to enchanced educational requirements for EMS > certification and licensure. The colleges, however, control the > " degree programs, " and typically have lower costs and, to a degree, > must by law have lower standards and accept anyone who meets > admissions criteria set by a Board of Regents that wants to make > money by providing an *adequate* education. > > What, if any, superior EMS programs exists at the college level, > provide a 4-year degree as a part of the paramedic education > process? I can think of zero. Why? There's no incentive for a > paramedic to commit 4 years and $50,000 to get the education we > demand of paramedics. It gets them nothing more than personal > satisfaction. satisfaction.<wbr>.. and I can get a lot of personal > $50,000 in ways other than college. > > So, where does that leave us? > > With colleges providing " just enough " education to pass EMT's and > paramedics, and private educators providing either substandard or > significantly expanded education - both at a cost premium. > > What's the solution? We must, together as a profession, demand > higher educational requirements. People screamed about requiring > Associate's Degrees for paramedics.. Associate's Degrees for paramed > Degree be required for an EMT Basic? That's essentially the > " apprentice " level for EMS. Why don't we require Bachelor's Degrees > for paramedics? > > If we're going to bother to fight the fight for education, why not go > > ahead and fight the whole fight? > > Mike :/ > > 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.