Dustdevil

Obviously Michael didn't read his own article. Dude, if you're going to break the law, at least try to delete the evidence!

It can be extremely difficult for a new grad basic to get an EMS job in many, many areas nationwide. It's darn near impossible in Tarrant County (Fort Worth) Texas. Except for a couple of very small suburbs who have FD run services, the rest of the country is run by a total of two services. Both of them have more applicants than they know what to do with, and are pretty picky about who they hire. And, of course, both of those services also have exclusivity ordinances that prevent other companies from even running transfer. So, what to do? You can go one county east to Dallas County, but each and every city EMS there is run by their FD. The two counties north of Dallas and Tarrant counties? All FD run. The two counties south of Dallas and Tarrant? Private contracts for one company in each of the counties. Being mostly rural, they only have a few units, and therefore few jobs. So, sadly enough, the only job that a new grad has the slightest chance at in the entire Dallas - Fort Worth Metroplex is driving a transfer truck in Dallas. And yes, they hire anybody with a pulse. The patch is optional. But there simply aren't any EMS jobs. I see that being the case in many other areas nationwide. And it is really not at all hard to figure out. That's why I tend to have zero sympathy for somebody who goes to EMT school and then whines that they can't get a job. Half an hour of rudimentary market analysis would have told them they were not likely to find a job in their area. Always look before you leap!

Minus 5 for poor subject title. Minus 5 for not searching previous topics. :wink: Congratulations, and good luck!

Now there's a redundant statement. Anytime somebody is being paid well in EMS, it is unbelievable!

Why don't you two get a room? :?

Eric Clapton. How about "Urgent" by Foreigner?

It's top secret. Hush hush. I wouldn't expect mere civilians to know about it. :wink:

You are possibly talking about this: http://www.innovativemed.net/ There was a discussion about this device several months back that can be found at http://www.emtcity.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.ph...p;highlight=mat At that time, it was unanimously concluded that it is worthless because there is no way to get the patient on the device without overmanipulating them.

Why not? Firefighting isn't rocket surgery. It's just a blue collar labour job that the majority do for free. As long as they are physically up to the task, I am no more concerned with their standards than I am with the standards of the trash collectors or ditch diggers.

I haven't even read the poem, but I'm sure getting a laugh out of the replies!

Hmmm... lotta nasty details to be worked out on this one, but I sure like the theory. This is the kind of outside-the-box brainstorming I like to see! :thumbright:

Word. Pass rates are not entirely meaningless. I would certainly be very concerned about a school that had a very high failure rate. But conversely, I would not be overly impressed with one that had an exceptionally high pass rate. But you also have to be careful with the whole reputation thing too. Get the opinions from employers, not medics. Almost every medic will tell you his school was the best, when in fact, he has no way of knowing since it's the only school he's ever been to. Texas Womens University had a big reputation around here because they supposedly had the highest NCLEX pass rate in the state. Everybody was always raving about how great their school was (especially the students). Yet having worked with lots of new TWU grads in the ER, I was completely underwhelmed by them. They were functionally illiterate. I don't know what TWU was teaching them, but it wasn't how to be a good nurse. But hey, they sure had great pass rates! So again, don't put too much weight on any one factor when choosing a school. Get the big picture.

Your problem is not that nobody hires basics. Your problem is that all the services are run by hosemonkeys. Completely different problem.

Wow, I opened this topic for sure expecting it to be in all capital letters! Anyhow, great question. I'd like to see that too. I'm afraid I don't know a source right off. I would recommend calling NREMT and seeing if they make those statistics available. Of course, although interesting and potentially valuable, statistics do not necessarily tell the whole story, so I would hope that you are using more than those to make your choice from. A couple of good resources to use in your search are these lists of nationally accredited schools. Not all medic schools are accredited. And because of variations in staff quality, not all accredited schools are excellent. But again, using these lists to narrow your choices down is a very good idea. Schools that are accredited have at least demonstrate a serious commitment to excellence and meeting a national standard. http://www.coaemsp.org/accreditatedprograms.htm http://www.caahep.org/programs.aspx If a school is not on that list, I would ask them some very serious and in-depth questions about the quality of their program and staff before I applied there. If they say they are interested in accreditation and are in the process of being evaluated, that's a very good sign. If they try to convince you that accreditation is meaningless and they don't care, RUN. If they don't care about their own accreditation, then they probably don't care about yours either. Good luck!

I keep hearing about such services. Can this really be happening in many places? I really can't imagine it. It's crazy. Not only are you denying your basics experience, but you are creating an inevitable resentment of the basics by medics. I would have zero respect for any administrator who pushed such a policy.

I'm not sure I agree with that. From what I see, most medics want to be the big cheese, so they want to work with a basic where they can dump all the BS runs on him. That's where the paragod syndrome comes from. Those who work dual medic ambos tend to remain more humble because they don't spend every shift in that situation of power disparity.

You misunderstood that issue too. The point was not to phase basics out. The point was to elevate their education to where they were no longer just basics. Huge difference. And some states are already doing this by converting their basic courses to intermediate courses so that everybody enters the field with greater understanding and scope of practise. Correct. Just like you should take Chem II immediately after Chem I. If you wait two years to go back and take Chem II, it's going to kick your ass because you have forgotten most of what you already learned about protons and electrons. The very same thing applies to EMS education. How exactly is improving education an inappropriate way to address poor education? Your logic escapes me. Not a problem. We're talking about medic school now, not basic school. The word is qualify, not quantify. Quantification is simple. But determining the quality of the applicants experience is nearly impossible. Again, just because an EMT has a job doesn't mean he is learning anything or growing professionally. It just means he has a job. We cannot assume that he spent any of that time with a qualified and experienced senior partner who took the time to impart important knowledge to him. So really, the time factor is completely without value unless you can qualify it. That's exactly my point! You're exactly right. This can be fixed at the educational level, and it should be. Education can be both quantified and qualified. It is structured with a syllabus which tells us exactly what the student has covered, how long, and in what depth. And it assures that this was covered to a verifiable level. You have absolutely no way of doing that with work experience. I agree with that too! But first responders do get a limited amount of assessment education. EMT's get a little more. And medics get a little more. But again, you are being contradictory. If experience is such a crucial factor, then why wouldn't you require it as a prerequisite for EMT school too?

You are misunderstanding me all the way around. First, other than Dallas county, most EMS around here is mixed basic/medic crews. Therefore, there are 911 jobs for basics. But in most areas of the country as a whole, there are MANY more basics than there are 911 jobs for them. This is not a local issue. This is a nationwide issue of supply and demand. All one has to do is read this board daily to see how many basics are not working 911 and cannot find a 911 job. And my major point is that even if a basic does get a 911 job, the positive effect it has on him being a medic is still negligible at best, and more likely it will have more negative effects than positive. Again, that is not a local issue. Arguing for bls experience prior to paramedic school is simply ludicrous and without any sound reasoning. They are getting experience IN paramedic school. And the faster they get there, the fresher their basic education will be in their mind. The currency of that information is much more important than how long they've been doing it. The knowledge you gained in basic school begins to deteriorate the day you graduate. Sure, you *might* learn a little so-called "street smarts" (whatever that is) while practicing as a basic, but "street smarts" is not an asset in paramedic school. Knowledge is an asset. Remember, we want to EDUCATE paramedics, not train them. So, what is the solution to the poor state of preparedness of new medics? Do we require two years of basic experience that we really have no way of qualifying? Do we let in the basic with five years on a dialysis truck because he has more "experience" than the basic with 6 months of 911 experience? How do we qualify their "experience"? How do we know that they really learned anything during that time? How do we know that they got anything more than bad habits and bad attitudes over those two or so years? Simple. We don't. We can't. You know as well as I do that once a basic hits the field, he is more concerned with being like everybody else than he is with capitalising on his education. I have yet to hear anybody explain how we qualify this "experience", or how to explain how the thousands of medics who simply cannot find a 911 job are supposed to get the "experience" you are asking for. It's just common sense that the problem of unpreparedness would be better addressed at the educational level. That is what school is for, preparing students for practice. If schools are taking the time to adequately educate their medics with field and clinical exposure, then they can give their students more relevant "experience" in a few months of internship than the basic would have gotten in a few years of unsupervised, unstructured on-the-job "experience," especially considering that the chances they got quality, high volume 911 experience with a qualified partner is slim to none. And of course, your argument can be applied all the way down the line? Shouldn't somebody have a couple years as a first responder before they go to EMT school? Shouldn't they have a couple years as a first aider before going to FR school? Funny how I never hear any basics making that argument. Where do you draw that line?

I have never taken an EVOC, so I ask this question out of complete ignorance. Is EVOC ever changing and evolving to such an extent that a refresher would be necessary for somebody who is practicing full time? I mean, ACLS and such thing are constantly evolving and require frequent refreshers. But it seems to me that EV operations is a pretty constant field without frequent or major changes that people would need to update upon. In that case, I think recertifications are pointless for the actively practicing professional. I mean, I could pretty well sum up all of the necessary points for new EV operators in less than a page, and they have been the same for thirty years. Anybody familiar enough with it to enlighten me on why recertification should be necessary?

Some do. Good for them. But the overwhelming majority do not. That's my point.

Great point, Zip! And that is among the weakest points in EMS education. The abject inadequacy of the clinical experience in most medic training programs is appalling. The reason so many people believe that you should get "experience" first is because the schools are FAILING to provide that experience in the first place like they should. That should be fixed. People should come out of school with sufficient experience to have confidence in their abilities. It should not be the burden of employers to train medics to the minimally functional level they should have attained before they sewed on a patch. Quite frankly, damn few EMS agencies have the resources and ability to do so. If you came out of EMT school needing a couple years of experience to become proficient, then your school sucks, plain and simple. The way to fix that is with more education, not with two years of driving people to dialysis.

LMAO!! Dude, that's funny right there, I don't care who you are!

I bet THIS is a fun place to work!!

It's actually available either way, as a set or as one big, but abbreviated book. I need to get the Canadian version.

Is it true that Prism is short for priapism? And is it really acceptable to use "short" and "priapism" in the same sentence? :shock: We used to love "Another One Bites The Dust" while working the rodeos and motorcycle races. Very appropriate!