So, I am currently undergoing the “new” national AEMT training and have a few things I would like comment on.
First, what is with the scope of practice? Pediatric IOs but no adult? It’s hard for me to see the reasoning behind that decision. (I’m from Oregon and that may just be the state's limits I haven’t checked, but the prior Oregon intermediate had way more skills than the AEMT does now [inculding Adult IOs] and with fewer lecture hours to boot so I doubt it.)
Or how about that we can hook up a 12 lead, but not interpret the results? Now this one is a little easier to grasp. My thoughts are that the basics were already doing this anyway so they figured they want to just make it apart of the advanced scope, and cardiac interpretation can be a little sticky at times, but honestly… if the AEMT is supposed to be the poor man’s paramedic as I think is what the point of it is. I think they might as well tack on the extra few weeks of cardiac monitoring. Half the class' curriculum is all review anyways. 25% of the time it feels like a basic class, so why not replace that basic refresher stuff that the whole class should be required to know before hand and apply that time to learning an additional skill that rural areas could actually benefit from? I suppose skill upkeep could be brought into question and how often they will actually use the skill, is it enough to keep it sharp? Thoughts on this would be great.
There's more scope issues but I'd like to focus on these two for now.
And finally, this isn’t related to the scope of practice, but I’m not really seeing any desire for AEMTs out there. Granted it's still in the "trial" process I think, but what are your opinions on whether or not people will start requesting AEMT’s as opposed to basics or medics? I can see it in hospitals because AEMTs can draw blood and start IVs (Which is fantastic) but how long until a real demand starts showing up in the field, if ever?
First, what is with the scope of practice? Pediatric IOs but no adult? It’s hard for me to see the reasoning behind that decision. (I’m from Oregon and that may just be the state's limits I haven’t checked, but the prior Oregon intermediate had way more skills than the AEMT does now [inculding Adult IOs] and with fewer lecture hours to boot so I doubt it.)
Or how about that we can hook up a 12 lead, but not interpret the results? Now this one is a little easier to grasp. My thoughts are that the basics were already doing this anyway so they figured they want to just make it apart of the advanced scope, and cardiac interpretation can be a little sticky at times, but honestly… if the AEMT is supposed to be the poor man’s paramedic as I think is what the point of it is. I think they might as well tack on the extra few weeks of cardiac monitoring. Half the class' curriculum is all review anyways. 25% of the time it feels like a basic class, so why not replace that basic refresher stuff that the whole class should be required to know before hand and apply that time to learning an additional skill that rural areas could actually benefit from? I suppose skill upkeep could be brought into question and how often they will actually use the skill, is it enough to keep it sharp? Thoughts on this would be great.
There's more scope issues but I'd like to focus on these two for now.
And finally, this isn’t related to the scope of practice, but I’m not really seeing any desire for AEMTs out there. Granted it's still in the "trial" process I think, but what are your opinions on whether or not people will start requesting AEMT’s as opposed to basics or medics? I can see it in hospitals because AEMTs can draw blood and start IVs (Which is fantastic) but how long until a real demand starts showing up in the field, if ever?