Lift Test

[flywithme2nyte]

Hi, I'm new to EMS and I was wondering if all services require a lift test. I'm from Jersey City and plan on riding as an EMT-B somewhere in the area. I am completely confident with everything except the lifting. I'm a pretty tiny 85-90 pounds, but I can lift about 100-105. I know the requirement is 125 pounds, but I plan on just getting experience for the first year doing unpaid ride-alongs. Is there a lift requirement for just riding along? I figure I can work my way up to 125 lbs in that time frame. Thanks...

- Sunita

[1aCe3]

I don't believe there is a lifting requirement for ride-alongs. In fact, you're usually not required to do anything. Usually when someone says "ride-along" you sign on to ride as an observer. However, if you are certified, than the department may let you peform other duties under the unit's supervision. But it's a great way to start practicing everything including the lifting.

EDIT : oops, somewhat mis-read your post. The services around here usually do require lift tests. I believe they are around 125 pounds.

[Ridryder 911]

Some services has actually did away with lift test.. (if you injure your back on the test, they have to pay Workman's comp) but, after your hired, you will be expected to lift at least 150 pounds to waist level (usually). True, for ride along, usually you will never lift a patient, maybe some basic equipment.

Serious about the profession, you might to start some weight training..

Good Luck !

R/r 911

[Dustdevil]

Any professional agency with half a brain would have a written policy specifically forbidding any observer, regardless of training, from participating in any aspect of patient care. If the agency you are riding with does not, it's probably a bad service to be learning from.

[1aCe3]

well then. How is one to gain more experience without actually practicing some of the skills in the field and being uncomfortably employed. Maybe there is a different ride-along agreement, but the only ones I've seen are the "observer" forms and the EMT-school ones.

[PRPGfirerescuetech]

Any professional agency with half a brain would have a written policy specifically forbidding any observer, regardless of training, from participating in any aspect of patient care. If the agency you are riding with does not, it's probably a bad service to be learning from.

100% right...amazing how unqualified personnel are allowed to perform aspects of care in this situation. One law suit, and that squad is shot.

To 1ace....do accountants do other peoples tax forms to 'see if they like it???' Do surgeons perform surgery to 'see if they like it'? Do mailmen bring me my bills to 'test the water'? Do women strip to 'see if they like it'?

Ok....last one was a bad example, but you see the point. Why are we in a field where people are allowed to try it out before you commit to education? This is one of a multitude of things to stop before EMS elevates.

[Dustdevil]

well then. How is one to gain more experience without actually practicing some of the skills in the field and being uncomfortably employed.

The school should have given that experience. If it didn't, you got ripped off.

And if your employer is hiring you knowing you lack that experience, it is then their responsibility to provide you with that experience in an environment that does not jeopardise patient care.

Students are covered by insurance. Observers are not.

Observation is not experience. It is merely exposure. And it's a waste of time, unless you are using it BEFORE school to determine if you really want this job.

And employers are not impressed by the "eagerness" you display by riding along for free. Everybody who enters the field has that same enthusiasm. It doesn't make you special. In fact, it just makes you look like a whacker. I'd avoid it at all costs.

[1aCe3]

I see,

thing is, most EMT schools, as you've made obvious already, don't really prepare you enough, some don't even let you do more then 1 ride along.

There's this one high paying hospital that operates 911 - they always want people to do lots of observer ride-alongs before hiring so they "become familiar with your face, and see how you operate." They only have a few units, and I've done one ride-along before and dropped by a couple times (For reasons other than employment), and in my opinion it's very social-club like, and if they don't like you, (even if you're the best EMT) they won't hire you. (I heard some stories about some classmates attempting) So that wasn't a very convincing experience.

"100% right...amazing how unqualified personnel are allowed to perform aspects of care in this situation. One law suit, and that squad is shot."

I was refering to those certified already.

"To 1ace....do accountants do other peoples tax forms to 'see if they like it???' Do surgeons perform surgery to 'see if they like it'? Do mailmen bring me my bills to 'test the water'? Do women strip to 'see if they like it'? "

I'd hope not, but surgical interns have to do a lot of observing. EMT-Interns are usually only required to do one ride along which is severely lacking in the neccessary training. That's the problem to begin with. I had felt minimally competent with the job when I first began, lacking in much medical knowledge - but ready to peform the required basics, but there seems to be those that feel completely nervous and unready. Like Dust said, the EMT program may have been horrible, but what's a student to do... Maybe the best thing for the original poster is to find employment instead, and making sure they spend significant time riding as a third.

[Dustdevil]

Maybe the best best for the original poster is to find employment instead, and making sure they spend significant time riding as a third.

That is excellent advice there. Probably the best. The original poster should see that nobody else came out of that class any better prepared than she is, yet most of them are already hitting the job market. So what's the difference? Self confidence. And if you broadcast to the world that you don't have self-confidence, you are forever marked with that label. Don't do it. Go straight to work.

Now, I would definitely be very honest with my potential employer when interviewing and say, "I did well in school. And I believe I know the material as good as anybody. But quite honestly, the school offered very little in the way of practical experience, so I think I would need an experienced partner to show me the ropes and bring me up to an operationally confident level." Of course, your employer knows this already, because all new grads are in the same boat. But he will appreciate your ability to recognise your own weaknesses and address a plan to improve them. And, in fact, I am particularly unimpressed with those applicants who cannot do that. That's why almost every interviewer will ask you for your weaknesses.

[RegularEMT]

That is excellent advice there. Probably the best. The original poster should see that nobody else came out of that class any better prepared than she is, yet most of them are already hitting the job market. So what's the difference? Self confidence. And if you broadcast to the world that you don't have self-confidence, you are forever marked with that label. Don't do it. Go straight to work.

Now, I would definitely be very honest with my potential employer when interviewing and say, "I did well in school. And I believe I know the material as good as anybody. But quite honestly, the school offered very little in the way of practical experience, so I think I would need an experienced partner to show me the ropes and bring me up to an operationally confident level." Of course, your employer knows this already, because all new grads are in the same boat. But he will appreciate your ability to recognise your own weaknesses and address a plan to improve them. And, in fact, I am particularly unimpressed with those applicants who cannot do that. That's why almost every interviewer will ask you for your weaknesses.

That's pretty much what I said, and was the easiest way. They were often quiet impressed when you know your greatest weakness is lack of knowledge.