Provider Levels (Controversial Discussion)

[JPINFV]

The problem right now is we're doing everything backwards. We're determining a minimum training time and then trying to see what we can fit in there, instead of determining what we need to have providers capable of and then going from there. We're also trying to have a 1 size fits all style of training. The training for a pure non-emergent IFT should be different than a basic level paramedic (using the term "paramedic" as someone who can lead a call), which is going to be different than a paramedic assistant (Certified Paramedic Assistant?) which can focus only on procedures.

The problem is that right now we're trying to have a paramedic assistant (all of those "ALS assist" and let them do X, Y, and Z like IVs when supervised to free up the paramedic), an IFT guy, and a basic paramedic all at 150 hours, and that's simply not enough time to do everything competently while providing an appropriate minimal level of care.

[Kiwiology]

What JP speaks of is sort of what things have been done in New Zealand; for example we have Patient Transport Officers who undertake patient transfers to/from hospital and clinics so what US call "IFT". They do not respond to pre-hospital emergencies and have no independent clinical skills beyond first aid and AED so are prevented from using the generic Ambulance Officer title or a specific practice level title.